The Public and Its Problems
{"WorkMasterId":6311,"WpPageId":281298,"ParentWpPageId":193822,"Slug":"public-and-its-problems","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/john-dewey/public-and-its-problems/","RelativeUrl":"theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/john-dewey/public-and-its-problems/","HasFullText":true,"RawHtmlLength":454559,"CleanHtmlLength":398449,"Kicker":"Philosophy Work","Title":"The Public and Its Problems","Deck":"Dewey analyzes publics as formed by indirect consequences and argues for communication, inquiry, and institutions that support democratic problem-solving.","BackLink":{"Text":"Back to John Dewey","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/john-dewey/"},"AuthorCard":{"Label":"Author","Title":"John Dewey","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/john-dewey/","MediaHref":"","ImageSrc":"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/john-dewey-01-portrait-by-underwood-underwood.jpg","ImageAlt":"Underwood and Underwood portrait of John Dewey","FilterTerra":"North America","ClickText":"John Dewey","ClickHref":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/john-dewey/","Copies":["1859 CE – 1952 CE","Burlington, Vermont","American pragmatist philosopher of instrumentalism, democratic experimentalism, progressive education, inquiry, experience, logic, ethics, aesthetics, public life, science, and naturalistic religion."]},"ContextCards":[{"Label":"Period","Key":"Period:4","Title":"Modern History","DateText":"1800 CE – 1944 CE","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/eras-of-thought/philosophers-of-modern-history/"},{"Label":"Era","Key":"Era:11","Title":"Long 19th Century","DateText":"1870 CE – 1913 CE","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/eras-of-thought/philosophers-of-modern-history/philosophers-of-the-long-19th-century/"},{"Label":"Composition","Title":"1927 CE","Url":"","DateText":""}],"DateNote":"Displayed as 1927 CE for The Public and Its Problems.","GeoCards":[{"Label":"Region","Key":"Region:1"},{"Label":"Terra Avita","Key":"TerraAvita:6"},{"Label":"Terra Avita Region","Key":"TerraAvitaRegion:25"},{"Label":"Modern Country","Key":"Country:USA:6"}],"OriginalTitle":"The Public and Its Problems","Language":"English","DisciplineCards":[{"Label":"Primary Discipline","Key":"Discipline:political-philosophy"},{"Label":"Secondary Discipline","Key":"Discipline:philosophy-of-language"}],"Tradition":"American pragmatism; instrumentalism; pragmatic naturalism; democratic experimentalism; progressive education","FullText":{"Title":"Full Text","Copy":"Public-domain full text from Project Gutenberg eBook #71000 .","Url":"","Label":"","Kicker":"","Cards":[]},"CoreThesis":["Dewey analyzes publics as formed by indirect consequences and argues for communication, inquiry, and institutions that support democratic problem-solving."],"Classification":{"AlternateTitles":"Public and Its Problems","KeyConcepts":"public; democracy; communication; consequences; institutions; inquiry; social intelligence","Methodology":"Direct Dewey work-cluster record based on SEP, IEP, Britannica, Center for Dewey Studies, Dewey scholarship, catalog records, and public edition evidence. No full text is imported.","Structure":"One work-cluster page with explicit integer display year, date note, evidence note, discipline mapping, and public source evidence."},"Arguments":["Dewey analyzes publics as formed by indirect consequences and argues for communication, inquiry, and institutions that support democratic problem-solving."],"Influence":{"InfluencedBy":"William James, Charles Sanders Peirce, G. W. F. Hegel, Darwinian naturalism, experimental science, Jane Addams and social reform, American democratic institutions, and educational practice.","InfluenceOn":""},"Significance":["Accepted as a direct Dewey work via Wikipedia, Commons/catalog evidence, and democratic-theory scholarship.","Dewey remains central for inquiry, democratic life, public problem-solving, education, experience, habits, art, values, religion as human faith, and experimental social intelligence."],"EvidenceNote":["Accepted as a direct Dewey work via Wikipedia, Commons/catalog evidence, and democratic-theory scholarship."],"MainSections":[{"Kind":"RawSection","Title":"Full Versions","BodyHtml":"\u003cdiv class=\"dz-philo__full-version-grid\"\u003e\n \u003carticle class=\"dz-philo__full-version-card\"\u003e\n \u003cp class=\"dz-philo__full-version-provider\"\u003eProject Gutenberg\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ch3 class=\"dz-philo__full-version-title\"\u003eProject Gutenberg eBook #71000\u003c/h3\u003e\n \u003cp class=\"dz-philo__full-version-meta\"\u003eHtmlText · Imported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ca class=\"dz-philo__full-version-link\" href=\"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/71000\"\u003eOpen full version\u003c/a\u003e\n \u003c/article\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e"},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Core Thesis","Paragraphs":["Dewey analyzes publics as formed by indirect consequences and argues for communication, inquiry, and institutions that support democratic problem-solving."]},{"Kind":"FieldSection","Title":"Classification","Fields":[{"Label":"Alternate Titles","Value":"Public and Its Problems"},{"Label":"Key Concepts","Value":"public; democracy; communication; consequences; institutions; inquiry; social intelligence"},{"Label":"Methodology","Value":"Direct Dewey work-cluster record based on SEP, IEP, Britannica, Center for Dewey Studies, Dewey scholarship, catalog records, and public edition evidence. No full text is imported."},{"Label":"Structure","Value":"One work-cluster page with explicit integer display year, date note, evidence note, discipline mapping, and public source evidence."}]},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Arguments","Paragraphs":["Dewey analyzes publics as formed by indirect consequences and argues for communication, inquiry, and institutions that support democratic problem-solving."]},{"Kind":"FieldSection","Title":"Influence","Fields":[{"Label":"Influenced By","Value":"William James, Charles Sanders Peirce, G. W. F. Hegel, Darwinian naturalism, experimental science, Jane Addams and social reform, American democratic institutions, and educational practice."},{"Label":"Influence On","Value":"Pragmatism, analytic and continental social philosophy, democratic theory, progressive education, inquiry theory, aesthetics, public philosophy, deliberative democracy, philosophy of science, and American philosophy."}]},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Significance","Paragraphs":["Accepted as a direct Dewey work via Wikipedia, Commons/catalog evidence, and democratic-theory scholarship.","Dewey remains central for inquiry, democratic life, public problem-solving, education, experience, habits, art, values, religion as human faith, and experimental social intelligence."]},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Evidence Note","Paragraphs":["Accepted as a direct Dewey work via Wikipedia, Commons/catalog evidence, and democratic-theory scholarship."]},{"Kind":"RawSection","Title":"Full Text","BodyHtml":"\u003cp class=\"dz-philo__section-copy dz-philo__full-text-source\"\u003ePublic-domain full text from \u003ca href=\"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/71000\"\u003eProject Gutenberg eBook #71000\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003carticle class=\"dz-philo__full-text-body\"\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"transnote covernote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"center larger\"\u003eTranscriber’s Note\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"center\"\u003eNew original cover art included with this eBook is granted\r\nto the public domain.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter section center\"\u003e\r\n\u003ch1\u003eTHE PUBLIC\u003cbr\u003e\r\nAND ITS PROBLEMS\u003c/h1\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"p2\"\u003eBY\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003cspan class=\"larger\"\u003eJOHN DEWEY\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"p2 gesperrt smaller\"\u003eALAN SWALLOW\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003cspan class=\"smaller\"\u003eDENVER\u003c/span\u003e\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap x-ebookmaker-drop\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter section center small\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"p4\"\u003e\r\nCOPYRIGHT, 1927,\u003cbr\u003e\r\nBY\u003cbr\u003e\r\nHENRY HOLT AND COMPANY\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cspan class=\"smaller\"\u003eCopyright renewed, 1954, by Mrs. John Dewey\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"p2\"\u003ePRINTED IN THE\u003cbr\u003e\r\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap x-ebookmaker-drop\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter\"\u003e\r\n\u003ch2 class=\"nobreak \" id=\"PREFATORY_NOTE\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smaller gesperrt\"\u003ePREFATORY NOTE\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis volume is the result of lectures delivered during\r\nthe month of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-six,\r\nupon the Larwill Foundation of Kenyon College,\r\nOhio. In acknowledging the many courtesies received,\r\nI wish to express also my appreciation of the toleration\r\nshown by the authorities of the College to delay in\r\npublication. The intervening period has permitted a\r\nfull revision and expansion of the lectures as originally\r\ndelivered. This fact will account for an occasional\r\nreference to books published in the interval.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_v\"\u003ev\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"right\"\u003eJ.\u0026nbsp;D.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap x-ebookmaker-drop\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter\"\u003e\r\n\u003ch2 class=\"nobreak\" id=\"CONTENTS\"\u003eCONTENTS\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ctable id=\"toc\"\u003e\r\n\u003ctr class=\"small\"\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdl\" colspan=\"2\"\u003eCHAPTER\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdr\"\u003ePAGE\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003c/tr\u003e\r\n\u003ctr class=\"head notpad\"\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdr top\"\u003eI.\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdl\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap\"\u003eSearch for the Public\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdr\"\u003e\u003ca href=\"#toclink_3\"\u003e3\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003c/tr\u003e\r\n\u003ctr\u003e\r\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdl\"\u003eDivergence of facts and theoretical interpretations concerning the nature of the state, \u003ca href=\"#Page_3\"\u003e3\u003c/a\u003e. Practical import of theories, \u003ca href=\"#Page_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e. Theories in terms of causal origin, \u003ca href=\"#Page_9\"\u003e9\u003c/a\u003e. Theory in terms of perceived consequences, \u003ca href=\"#Page_12\"\u003e12\u003c/a\u003e. Distinction of private and public substituted for that of individual and social, \u003ca href=\"#Page_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e. The influence of association, \u003ca href=\"#Page_22\"\u003e22\u003c/a\u003e. Plurality of associations, \u003ca href=\"#Page_26\"\u003e26\u003c/a\u003e. Criterion of the public, \u003ca href=\"#Page_27\"\u003e27\u003c/a\u003e. Function of the state, \u003ca href=\"#Page_28\"\u003e28\u003c/a\u003e. The state as an experimental problem, \u003ca href=\"#Page_32\"\u003e32\u003c/a\u003e. Summary, \u003ca href=\"#Page_34\"\u003e34\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003c/tr\u003e\r\n\u003ctr class=\"head\"\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdr top\"\u003eII.\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdl\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap\"\u003eDiscovery of the State\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdr\"\u003e\u003ca href=\"#toclink_37\"\u003e37\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003c/tr\u003e\r\n\u003ctr\u003e\r\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdl\"\u003ePublic and state, \u003ca href=\"#Page_38\"\u003e38\u003c/a\u003e. Geographical extent, \u003ca href=\"#Page_39\"\u003e39\u003c/a\u003e. Multiplicity of states, \u003ca href=\"#Page_43\"\u003e43\u003c/a\u003e. Spread of consequences, \u003ca href=\"#Page_47\"\u003e47\u003c/a\u003e. Law is not command, \u003ca href=\"#Page_53\"\u003e53\u003c/a\u003e. Law and reasonableness, \u003ca href=\"#Page_55\"\u003e55\u003c/a\u003e. The public and long-established habits of action, \u003ca href=\"#Page_57\"\u003e57\u003c/a\u003e. Fear of the new, \u003ca href=\"#Page_59\"\u003e59\u003c/a\u003e. Irreparable consequences, \u003ca href=\"#Page_62\"\u003e62\u003c/a\u003e. Variation of state-functions according to circumstances of time and place, \u003ca href=\"#Page_65\"\u003e65\u003c/a\u003e. State and government, \u003ca href=\"#Page_66\"\u003e66\u003c/a\u003e. State and society, \u003ca href=\"#Page_69\"\u003e69\u003c/a\u003e. The pluralistic theory, \u003ca href=\"#Page_73\"\u003e73\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003c/tr\u003e\r\n\u003ctr class=\"head\"\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdr top\"\u003eIII.\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdl\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap\"\u003eThe Democratic State\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdr\"\u003e\u003ca href=\"#toclink_75\"\u003e75\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003c/tr\u003e\r\n\u003ctr\u003e\r\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdl\"\u003ePrivate and representative rôles of officials, \u003ca href=\"#Page_76\"\u003e76\u003c/a\u003e. Selection of rulers by irrelevant methods, \u003ca href=\"#Page_78\"\u003e78\u003c/a\u003e. The problem of control of officials, \u003ca href=\"#Page_82\"\u003e82\u003c/a\u003e. Meanings of democracy, \u003ca href=\"#Page_83\"\u003e83\u003c/a\u003e. Fallacy as to origin of democratic government, \u003ca href=\"#Page_84\"\u003e84\u003c/a\u003e. Influence of non-political factors, \u003ca href=\"#Page_85\"\u003e85\u003c/a\u003e. The origin of “individualism,” \u003ca href=\"#Page_86\"\u003e86\u003c/a\u003e. Influence of the new industry; the theory of “natural” economic laws, \u003ca href=\"#Page_90\"\u003e90\u003c/a\u003e. James Mill’s philosophy of democratic government, \u003ca href=\"#Page_93\"\u003e93\u003c/a\u003e. Criticism of “individualism,” \u003ca href=\"#Page_95\"\u003e95\u003c/a\u003e. Criticism of antithesis of natural and artificial, \u003ca href=\"#Page_102\"\u003e102\u003c/a\u003e. Wants and aims as functions of social life, \u003ca href=\"#Page_104\"\u003e104\u003c/a\u003e. Persistence of pre-industrial institutions, \u003ca href=\"#Page_108\"\u003e108\u003c/a\u003e. Final problem, \u003ca href=\"#Page_109\"\u003e109\u003c/a\u003e.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_vi\"\u003evi\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003c/tr\u003e\r\n\u003ctr class=\"head\"\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdr top\"\u003eIV.\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdl\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap\"\u003eEclipse of the Public\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdr\"\u003e\u003ca href=\"#toclink_110\"\u003e110\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003c/tr\u003e\r\n\u003ctr\u003e\r\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdl\"\u003eLocal origin of American democratic government, \u003ca href=\"#Page_111\"\u003e111\u003c/a\u003e. National unification due to technological factors, \u003ca href=\"#Page_114\"\u003e114\u003c/a\u003e. Submergence of the public, \u003ca href=\"#Page_116\"\u003e116\u003c/a\u003e. Disparity of inherited ideas and machinery with actual conditions, \u003ca href=\"#Page_117\"\u003e117\u003c/a\u003e. Illustrations of resulting failures, \u003ca href=\"#Page_119\"\u003e119\u003c/a\u003e. Problem of discovering the public, \u003ca href=\"#Page_122\"\u003e122\u003c/a\u003e. Democracy versus the expert, \u003ca href=\"#Page_123\"\u003e123\u003c/a\u003e. Explanation of eclipse of public, \u003ca href=\"#Page_126\"\u003e126\u003c/a\u003e. Illustrated by the World War, \u003ca href=\"#Page_127\"\u003e127\u003c/a\u003e. Application of criteria of the public, \u003ca href=\"#Page_129\"\u003e129\u003c/a\u003e. Failure of traditional principles, \u003ca href=\"#Page_131\"\u003e131\u003c/a\u003e. Political apathy accounted for, \u003ca href=\"#Page_134\"\u003e134\u003c/a\u003e. Need of experts, \u003ca href=\"#Page_135\"\u003e135\u003c/a\u003e. Rivals of political interest, \u003ca href=\"#Page_138\"\u003e138\u003c/a\u003e. Ideals and instrumentalities, \u003ca href=\"#Page_141\"\u003e141\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003c/tr\u003e\r\n\u003ctr class=\"head\"\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdr top\"\u003eV.\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdl\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap\"\u003eSearch for the Great Community\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdr\"\u003e\u003ca href=\"#toclink_143\"\u003e143\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003c/tr\u003e\r\n\u003ctr\u003e\r\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdl\"\u003eDemocracy as idea and as governmental behavior, \u003ca href=\"#Page_143\"\u003e143\u003c/a\u003e. Problem of the Great Community, \u003ca href=\"#Page_147\"\u003e147\u003c/a\u003e. Meaning of the democratic ideal, \u003ca href=\"#Page_148\"\u003e148\u003c/a\u003e. Democracy and community life, \u003ca href=\"#Page_149\"\u003e149\u003c/a\u003e. Community and associated activity, \u003ca href=\"#Page_151\"\u003e151\u003c/a\u003e. Communication and the community, \u003ca href=\"#Page_152\"\u003e152\u003c/a\u003e. Intellectual conditions of the Great Community, \u003ca href=\"#Page_155\"\u003e155\u003c/a\u003e. Habit and intelligence, \u003ca href=\"#Page_158\"\u003e158\u003c/a\u003e. Science and knowledge, \u003ca href=\"#Page_163\"\u003e163\u003c/a\u003e. Limitations upon social inquiry, \u003ca href=\"#Page_166\"\u003e166\u003c/a\u003e. Isolation of social inquiry, \u003ca href=\"#Page_171\"\u003e171\u003c/a\u003e. Pure and applied science, \u003ca href=\"#Page_172\"\u003e172\u003c/a\u003e. Communication and public opinion, \u003ca href=\"#Page_173\"\u003e173\u003c/a\u003e. Limitations of distribution of knowledge, \u003ca href=\"#Page_176\"\u003e176\u003c/a\u003e. Communication as art, \u003ca href=\"#Page_183\"\u003e183\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003c/tr\u003e\r\n\u003ctr class=\"head\"\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdr top\"\u003eVI.\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdl\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap\"\u003eThe Problem of Method\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdr\"\u003e\u003ca href=\"#toclink_185\"\u003e185\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003c/tr\u003e\r\n\u003ctr\u003e\r\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdl\"\u003eAntithesis between individual and social as obstruction to method, \u003ca href=\"#Page_186\"\u003e186\u003c/a\u003e. Meaning of individual, \u003ca href=\"#Page_185\"\u003e185\u003c/a\u003e. Where opposition lies, \u003ca href=\"#Page_191\"\u003e191\u003c/a\u003e. Meaning of absolutistic logic, \u003ca href=\"#Page_194\"\u003e194\u003c/a\u003e. Illustration from doctrine of “evolution,” \u003ca href=\"#Page_196\"\u003e196\u003c/a\u003e. From psychology, \u003ca href=\"#Page_197\"\u003e197\u003c/a\u003e. Difference of human and physical science, \u003ca href=\"#Page_199\"\u003e199\u003c/a\u003e. Experimental inquiry as alternative, \u003ca href=\"#Page_202\"\u003e202\u003c/a\u003e. Method, and government by experts, \u003ca href=\"#Page_203\"\u003e203\u003c/a\u003e. Democracy and education by discussion, \u003ca href=\"#Page_206\"\u003e206\u003c/a\u003e. The level of intelligence, \u003ca href=\"#Page_210\"\u003e210\u003c/a\u003e. The necessity of local community life, \u003ca href=\"#Page_211\"\u003e211\u003c/a\u003e. Problem of restoration, \u003ca href=\"#Page_213\"\u003e213\u003c/a\u003e. Tendencies making for reëstablishment, \u003ca href=\"#Page_215\"\u003e215\u003c/a\u003e. Connection of this problem with the problem of political intelligence, \u003ca href=\"#Page_217\"\u003e217\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003c/tr\u003e\r\n\u003ctr class=\"head\"\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdl\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"in2\"\u003eIndex\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"tdr\"\u003e\u003ca href=\"#toclink_221\"\u003e221\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003c/tr\u003e\r\n\u003c/table\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap x-ebookmaker-drop\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter\"\u003e\r\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan class=\"larger\"\u003e\r\nTHE PUBLIC\u003cbr\u003e\r\nAND ITS PROBLEMS\u003c/span\u003e\r\n\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_3\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap x-ebookmaker-drop\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter\"\u003e\r\n\u003ch2 class=\"nobreak\" id=\"toclink_3\"\u003eCHAPTER I\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cspan class=\"subhead\"\u003eSEARCH FOR THE PUBLIC\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIf one wishes to realize the distance which may lie\r\nbetween “facts” and the meaning of facts, let one go\r\nto the field of social discussion. Many persons seem\r\nto suppose that facts carry their meaning along with\r\nthemselves on their face. Accumulate enough of them,\r\nand their interpretation stares out at you. The development\r\nof physical science is thought to confirm the\r\nidea. But the power of physical facts to coerce belief\r\ndoes not reside in the bare phenomena. It proceeds\r\nfrom method, from the technique of research and calculation.\r\nNo one is ever forced by just the collection\r\nof facts to accept a particular theory of their meaning,\r\nso long as one retains intact some other doctrine\r\nby which he can marshal them. Only when the facts\r\nare allowed free play for the suggestion of new points\r\nof view is any significant conversion of conviction as\r\nto meaning possible. Take away from physical science\r\nits laboratory apparatus and its mathematical technique,\r\nand the human imagination might run wild in its\r\ntheories of interpretation even if we suppose the brute\r\nfacts to remain the same.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn any event, social philosophy exhibits an immense\r\ngap between facts and doctrines. Compare, for example,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_4\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe facts of politics with the theories which\r\nare extant regarding the nature of the state. If inquirers\r\nconfine themselves to observed phenomena, the\r\nbehavior of kings, presidents, legislators, judges,\r\nsheriffs, assessors and all other public officials, surely\r\na reasonable consensus is not difficult to attain. Contrast\r\nwith this agreement the differences which exist\r\nas to the basis, nature, functions and justification of\r\nthe state, and note the seemingly hopeless disagreement.\r\nIf one asks not for an enumeration of facts,\r\nbut for a definition of the state, one is plunged into\r\ncontroversy, into a medley of contradictory clamors.\r\nAccording to one tradition, which claims to derive\r\nfrom Aristotle, the state is associated and harmonized\r\nlife lifted to its highest potency; the state is at once\r\nthe keystone of the social arch and is the arch in its\r\nwholeness. According to another view, it is just one\r\nof many social institutions, having a narrow but important\r\nfunction, that of arbiter in the conflict of\r\nother social units. Every group springs out of and\r\nrealizes a positive human interest; the church, religious\r\nvalues; guilds, unions and corporations material\r\neconomic interests, and so on. The state, however, has\r\nno concern of its own; its purpose is formal, like that\r\nof the leader of the orchestra who plays no instrument\r\nand makes no music, but who serves to keep other\r\nplayers who do produce music in unison with one\r\nanother. Still a third view has it that the state is\r\norganized oppression, at once a social excrescence, a\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_5\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\r\nparasite and a tyrant. A fourth is that it is an\r\ninstrument more or less clumsy for keeping individuals\r\nfrom quarreling too much with one another.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eConfusion grows when we enter subdivisions of these\r\ndifferent views and the grounds offered for them. In\r\none philosophy, the state is the apex and completion of\r\nhuman association, and manifests the highest realization\r\nof all distinctively human capacities. The view\r\nhad a certain pertinency when it was first formulated.\r\nIt developed in an antique city-state, where to be fully\r\na free man and to be a citizen participating in the\r\ndrama, the sports, the religion and the government of\r\nthe community were equivalent affairs. But the view\r\npersists and is applied to the state of to-day. Another\r\nview coördinates the state with the church (or\r\nas a variant view slightly subordinates it to the latter)\r\nas the secular arm of Deity maintaining outward order\r\nand decorum among men. A modern theory idealizes\r\nthe state and its activities by borrowing the conceptions\r\nof reason and will, magnifying them till the\r\nstate appears as the objectified manifestation of a will\r\nand reason which far transcend the desires and purposes\r\nwhich can be found among individuals or\r\nassemblages of individuals.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe are not concerned, however, with writing either\r\na cyclopedia or history of political doctrines. So we\r\npause with these arbitrary illustrations of the proposition\r\nthat little common ground has been discovered\r\nbetween the factual phenomena of political behavior\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_6\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\r\nand the interpretation of the meaning of these phenomena.\r\nOne way out of the impasse is to consign the\r\nwhole matter of meaning and interpretation to political\r\nphilosophy as distinguished from political science.\r\nThen it can be pointed out that futile speculation is\r\na companion of all philosophy. The moral is to drop\r\nall doctrines of this kind overboard, and stick to facts\r\nverifiably ascertained.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe remedy urged is simple and attractive. But it\r\nis not possible to employ it. Political facts are not outside\r\nhuman desire and judgment. Change men’s estimate\r\nof the \u003cem\u003evalue\u003c/em\u003e of existing political agencies and\r\nforms, and the latter change more or less. The different\r\ntheories which mark political philosophy do not\r\ngrow up externally to the facts which they aim to interpret;\r\nthey are amplifications of selected factors among\r\nthose facts. Modifiable and altering human habits sustain\r\nand generate political phenomena. These habits\r\nare not wholly informed by reasoned purpose and deliberate\r\nchoice—far from it—but they are more or less\r\namenable to them. Bodies of men are constantly engaged\r\nin attacking and trying to change some political\r\nhabits, while other bodies of men are actively supporting\r\nand justifying them. It is mere pretense, then,\r\nto suppose that we can stick by the \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003ede facto\u003c/i\u003e, and not\r\nraise at some points the question of \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003ede jure\u003c/i\u003e: the question\r\nof by what right, the question of legitimacy. And\r\nsuch a question has a way of growing until it has become\r\na question as to the nature of the state itself.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_7\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\r\nThe alternatives before us are not factually limited\r\nscience on one hand and uncontrolled speculation on\r\nthe other. The choice is between blind, unreasoned\r\nattack and defense on the one hand, and discriminating\r\ncriticism employing intelligent method and a conscious\r\ncriterion on the other.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe prestige of the mathematical and physical\r\nsciences is great, and properly so. But the difference\r\nbetween facts which are what they are independent of\r\nhuman desire and endeavor and facts which are to\r\nsome extent what they are because of human interest\r\nand purpose, and which alter with alteration in the\r\nlatter, cannot be got rid of by any methodology. The\r\nmore sincerely we appeal to facts, the greater is the\r\nimportance of the distinction between facts which condition\r\nhuman activity and facts which are conditioned\r\nby human activity. In the degree which we ignore\r\nthis difference, social science becomes pseudo-science.\r\nJeffersonian and Hamiltonian political ideas are not\r\nmerely theories dwelling in the human mind remote from\r\nfacts of American political behavior. They are\r\nexpressions of chosen phases and factors among\r\nthose facts, but they are also something more: namely,\r\nforces which have shaped those facts and which are\r\nstill contending to shape them in the future this way\r\nand that. There is more than a speculative difference\r\nbetween a theory of the state which regards it as an\r\ninstrument in protecting individuals in the rights they\r\nalready have, and one which conceives its function to\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_8\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbe the effecting of a more equitable distribution of\r\nrights among individuals. For the theories are held\r\nand applied by legislators in congress and by judges\r\non the bench and make a difference in the subsequent\r\nfacts themselves.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eI make no doubt that the practical influence of the\r\npolitical philosophies of Aristotle, the Stoics, St.\r\nThomas, Locke, Rousseau, Kant and Hegel has often\r\nbeen exaggerated in comparison with the influence of\r\ncircumstances. But a due measure of efficacy cannot be\r\ndenied them on the ground which is sometimes proffered;\r\nit cannot be denied on the ground that ideas are\r\nwithout potency. For ideas belong to human beings\r\nwho have bodies, and there is no separation between\r\nthe structures and processes of the part of the body\r\nthat entertains the ideas and the part that performs\r\nacts. Brain and muscles work together, and the brains\r\nof men are much more important data for social science\r\nthan are their muscular system and their sense organs.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is not our intention to engage in a discussion of\r\npolitical philosophies. The concept of the state, like\r\nmost concepts which are introduced by “The,” is both\r\ntoo rigid and too tied up with controversies to be of\r\nready use. It is a concept which can be approached\r\nby a flank movement more easily than by a frontal\r\nattack. The moment we utter the words “The State”\r\na score of intellectual ghosts rise to obscure our vision.\r\nWithout our intention and without our notice, the\r\nnotion of “The State” draws us imperceptibly into a\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_9\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\r\nconsideration of the logical relationship of various\r\nideas to one another, and away from facts of human\r\nactivity. It is better, if possible, to start from the\r\nlatter and see if we are not led thereby into an idea\r\nof something which will turn out to implicate the marks\r\nand signs which characterize political behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere is nothing novel in this method of approach.\r\nBut very much depends upon what we select from which\r\nto start and very much depends upon whether we select\r\nour point of departure in order to tell at the terminus\r\nwhat the state \u003cem\u003eought\u003c/em\u003e to be or what it \u003cem\u003eis\u003c/em\u003e. If we are\r\ntoo concerned with the former, there is a likelihood\r\nthat we shall unwittingly have doctored the facts\r\nselected in order to come out at a predetermined point.\r\nThe phase of human action we should \u003cem\u003enot\u003c/em\u003e start with\r\nis that to which direct causative power is attributed.\r\nWe should not look for state-forming forces. If we\r\ndo, we are likely to get involved in mythology. To\r\nexplain the origin of the state by saying that man is\r\na political animal is to travel in a verbal circle. It\r\nis like attributing religion to a religious instinct, the\r\nfamily to marital and parental affection, and language\r\nto a natural endowment which impels men to speech.\r\nSuch theories merely reduplicate in a so-called causal\r\nforce the effects to be accounted for. They are of a\r\npiece with the notorious potency of opium to put men\r\nto sleep because of its dormitive power.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe warning is not directed against a man of straw.\r\nThe attempt to derive the state, or any other social\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_10\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\r\ninstitution, from strictly “psychological” data is in\r\npoint. Appeal to a gregarious instinct to account\r\nfor social arrangements is the outstanding example of\r\nthe lazy fallacy. Men do not run together and join\r\nin a larger mass as do drops of quicksilver, and if\r\nthey did the result would not be a state nor any mode\r\nof human association. The instincts, whether named\r\ngregariousness, or sympathy, or the sense of mutual\r\ndependence, or domination on one side and abasement\r\nand subjection on the other, at best account for everything\r\nin general and nothing in particular. And at\r\nworst, the alleged instinct and natural endowment appealed\r\nto as a causal force themselves represent physiological\r\ntendencies which have previously been shaped\r\ninto habits of action and expectation by means of the\r\nvery social conditions they are supposed to explain.\r\nMen who have lived in herds develop attachment to the\r\nhorde to which they have become used; children who\r\nhave perforce lived in dependence grow into habits of\r\ndependence and subjection. The inferiority complex is\r\nsocially acquired, and the “instinct” of display and\r\nmastery is but its other face. There are structural\r\norgans which physiologically manifest themselves in\r\nvocalizations as the organs of a bird induce song. But\r\nthe barking of dogs and the song of birds are\r\nenough to prove that these native tendencies do not\r\ngenerate language. In order to be converted into language,\r\nnative vocalization requires transformation by\r\nextrinsic conditions, both organic and extra-organic or\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_11\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\r\nenvironmental: formation, be it noted, not just stimulation.\r\nThe cry of a baby can doubtless be described in\r\npurely organic terms, but the wail becomes a noun or\r\nverb only by its consequences in the responsive behavior\r\nof others. This responsive behavior takes the form of\r\nnurture and care, themselves dependent upon tradition,\r\ncustom and social patterns. Why not postulate an\r\n“instinct” of infanticide as well as one of guidance and\r\ninstruction? Or an “instinct” of exposing girls and\r\ntaking care of boys?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe may, however, take the argument in a less mythological\r\nform than is found in the current appeal to\r\nsocial instincts of one sort or another. The activities\r\nof animals, like those of minerals and plants, are correlated\r\nwith their structure. Quadrupeds run, worms\r\ncrawl, fish swim, birds fly. They are made that way;\r\nit is “the nature of the beast.” We do not gain anything\r\nby inserting instincts to run, creep, swim and fly\r\nbetween the structure and the act. But the strictly\r\norganic conditions which lead men to join, assemble,\r\nforegather, combine, are just those which lead other\r\nanimals to unite in swarms and packs and herds. In\r\ndescribing what is common in human and other animal\r\njunctions and consolidations we fail to touch what\r\nis distinctively human in human associations. These\r\nstructural conditions and acts may be \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003esine qua nons\u003c/i\u003e of\r\nhuman societies; but so are the attractions and repulsions\r\nwhich are exhibited in inanimate things.\r\nPhysics and chemistry as well as zoölogy may inform\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_12\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\r\nus of some of the conditions without which human\r\nbeings would not associate. But they do not furnish\r\nus with the \u003cem\u003esufficient\u003c/em\u003e conditions of community life and\r\nof the forms which it takes.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe must in any case start from acts which are performed,\r\nnot from hypothetical causes for those acts, and\r\nconsider their consequences. We must also introduce\r\nintelligence, or the observation of consequences \u003cem\u003eas\u003c/em\u003e consequences,\r\nthat is, in connection with the acts from which\r\nthey proceed. Since we must introduce it, it is better\r\nto do so knowingly than it is to smuggle it in in a\r\nway which deceives not only the customs officer—the\r\nreader—but ourselves as well. We take then our point\r\nof departure from the objective fact that human acts\r\nhave consequences upon others, that some of these\r\nconsequences are perceived, and that their perception\r\nleads to subsequent effort to control action so as to\r\nsecure some consequences and avoid others. Following\r\nthis clew, we are led to remark that the consequences\r\nare of two kinds, those which affect the persons directly\r\nengaged in a transaction, and those which affect others\r\nbeyond those immediately concerned. In this distinction\r\nwe find the germ of the distinction between\r\nthe private and the public. When indirect consequences\r\nare recognized and there is effort to regulate them,\r\nsomething having the traits of a state comes into\r\nexistence. When the consequences of an action are\r\nconfined, or are thought to be confined, mainly to the\r\npersons directly engaged in it, the transaction is a\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_13\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e\r\nprivate one. When A and B carry on a conversation\r\ntogether the action is a trans-action: both are\r\nconcerned in it; its results pass, as it were, across\r\nfrom one to the other. One or other or both may\r\nbe helped or harmed thereby. But, presumably, the\r\nconsequences of advantage and injury do not extend\r\nbeyond A and B; the activity lies between them; it is\r\nprivate. Yet if it is found that the consequences of\r\nconversation extend beyond the two directly concerned,\r\nthat they affect the welfare of many others, the act\r\nacquires a public capacity, whether the conversation\r\nbe carried on by a king and his prime minister or by\r\nCataline and a fellow conspirator or by merchants planning\r\nto monopolize a market.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe distinction between private and public is thus\r\nin no sense equivalent to the distinction between individual\r\nand social, even if we suppose that the latter\r\ndistinction has a definite meaning. Many private acts\r\nare social; their consequences contribute to the welfare\r\nof the community or affect its status and prospects.\r\nIn the broad sense any transaction deliberately\r\ncarried on between two or more persons is social in\r\nquality. It is a form of associated behavior and its\r\nconsequences may influence further associations. A\r\nman may serve others, even in the community at large,\r\nin carrying on a private business. To some extent\r\nit is true, as Adam Smith asserted, that our breakfast\r\ntable is better supplied by the convergent outcome of\r\nactivities of farmers, grocers and butchers carrying\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_14\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\r\non private affairs with a view to private profit than\r\nit would be if we were served on a basis of philanthropy\r\nor public spirit. Communities have been supplied with\r\nworks of art, with scientific discoveries, because of the\r\npersonal delight found by private persons in engaging\r\nin these activities. There are private philanthropists\r\nwho act so that needy persons or the community as\r\na whole profit by the endowment of libraries, hospitals\r\nand educational institutions. In short, private acts\r\nmay be socially valuable both by indirect consequences\r\nand by direct intention.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere is therefore no necessary connection between\r\nthe private character of an act and its non-social or\r\nanti-social character. The public, moreover, cannot be\r\nidentified with the socially useful. One of the most\r\nregular activities of the politically organized community\r\nhas been waging war. Even the most bellicose\r\nof militarists will hardly contend that all wars have\r\nbeen socially helpful, or deny that some have been so\r\ndestructive of social values that it would have been\r\ninfinitely better if they had not been waged. The\r\nargument for the non-equivalence of the public and the\r\nsocial, in any praiseworthy sense of social, does not rest\r\nupon the case of war alone. There is no one, I suppose,\r\nso enamored of political action as to hold that it has\r\nnever been short-sighted, foolish and harmful. There\r\nare even those who hold that the presumption is always\r\nthat social loss will result from agents of the public\r\ndoing anything which could be done by persons in their\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_15\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\r\nprivate capacity. There are many more who protest\r\nthat some special public activity, whether prohibition,\r\na protective tariff or the expanded meaning given the\r\nMonroe Doctrine, is baleful to society. Indeed every\r\nserious political dispute turns upon the question\r\nwhether a given political act is socially beneficial or\r\nharmful.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eJust as behavior is not anti-social or non-social because\r\nprivately undertaken, it is not necessarily socially\r\nvaluable because carried on in the name of the public\r\nby public agents. The argument has not carried us\r\nfar, but at least it has warned us against identifying\r\nthe community and its interests with the state or the\r\npolitically organized community. And the differentiation\r\nmay dispose us to look with more favor upon\r\nthe proposition already advanced: namely, that the\r\nline between private and public is to be drawn on the\r\nbasis of the extent and scope of the consequences of\r\nacts which are so important as to need control, whether\r\nby inhibition or by promotion. We distinguish private\r\nand public buildings, private and public schools, private\r\npaths and public highways, private assets and\r\npublic funds, private persons and public officials. It\r\nis our thesis that in this distinction we find the key to\r\nthe nature and office of the state. It is not without significance\r\nthat etymologically “private” is defined in\r\nopposition to “official,” a private person being one deprived\r\nof public position. The public consists of all\r\nthose who are affected by the indirect consequences of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_16\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\r\ntransactions to such an extent that it is deemed necessary\r\nto have those consequences systematically cared\r\nfor. Officials are those who look out for and take care\r\nof the interests thus affected. Since those who are indirectly\r\naffected are not direct participants in the\r\ntransactions in question, it is necessary that certain\r\npersons be set apart to represent them, and see to it\r\nthat their interests are conserved and protected. The\r\nbuildings, property, funds, and other physical resources\r\ninvolved in the performance of this office are\r\n\u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003eres publica\u003c/i\u003e, the common-wealth. The public as far as\r\norganized by means of officials and material agencies\r\nto care for the extensive and enduring indirect consequences\r\nof transactions between persons is the \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003ePopulus\u003c/i\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is a commonplace that legal agencies for protecting\r\nthe persons and properties of members of a community,\r\nand for redressing wrongs which they suffer,\r\ndid not always exist. Legal institutions derive from\r\nan earlier period when the right of self-help obtained.\r\nIf a person was harmed, it was strictly up to him what\r\nhe should do to get even. Injuring another and exacting\r\na penalty for an injury received were private transactions.\r\nThey were the affairs of those directly concerned\r\nand nobody else’s direct business. But the injured\r\nparty obtained readily the help of friends and\r\nrelatives, and the aggressor did likewise. Hence consequences\r\nof the quarrel did not remain confined to those\r\nimmediately concerned. Feuds ensued, and the blood-quarrel\r\nmight implicate large numbers and endure for\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_17\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e\r\ngenerations. The recognition of this extensive and\r\nlasting embroilment and the harm wrought by it to\r\nwhole families brought a public into existence. The\r\ntransaction ceased to concern only the immediate parties\r\nto it. Those indirectly affected formed a public\r\nwhich took steps to conserve its interests by instituting\r\ncomposition and other means of pacification to localize\r\nthe trouble.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe facts are simple and familiar. But they seem\r\nto present in embryonic form the traits that define a\r\nstate, its agencies and officers. The instance illustrates\r\nwhat was meant when it said that it is fallacy to try\r\nto determine the nature of the state in terms of direct\r\ncausal factors. Its essential point has to do with the\r\nenduring and extensive consequences of behavior, which\r\nlike all behavior proceeds in ultimate analysis through\r\nindividual human beings. Recognition of evil consequences\r\nbrought about a common interest which required\r\nfor its maintenance certain measures and rules,\r\ntogether with the selection of certain persons as their\r\nguardians, interpreters, and, if need be, their executors.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIf the account given is at all in the right direction,\r\nit explains the gap already mentioned between the\r\nfacts of political action and theories of the state. Men\r\nhave looked in the wrong place. They have sought for\r\nthe key to the nature of the state in the field of agencies,\r\nin that of doers of deeds, or in some will or purpose\r\nback of the deeds. They have sought to explain\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_18\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe state in terms of authorship. Ultimately all deliberate\r\nchoices proceed from somebody in particular;\r\nacts are performed by somebody, and all arrangements\r\nand plans are made by somebody in the most concrete\r\nsense of “somebody.” Some John Doe and Richard Roe\r\nfigure in every transaction. We shall not, then, find\r\nthe public if we look for it on the side of originators of\r\nvoluntary actions. Some John Smith and his congeners\r\ndecide whether or not to grow wheat and how\r\nmuch, where and how to invest money, what roads to\r\nbuild and travel, whether to wage war and if so how,\r\nwhat laws to pass and which to obey and disobey.\r\nThe actual alternative to deliberate acts of individuals\r\nis not action by the public; it is routine, impulsive and\r\nother unreflected acts also performed by individuals.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIndividual human beings may lose their identity in\r\na mob or in a political convention or in a joint-stock\r\ncorporation or at the polls. But this does not mean\r\nthat some mysterious collective agency is making decisions,\r\nbut that some few persons who know what they\r\nare about are taking advantage of massed force to\r\nconduct the mob their way, boss a political machine,\r\nand manage the affairs of corporate business. When\r\nthe public or state is involved in making social arrangements\r\nlike passing laws, enforcing a contract, conferring\r\na franchise, it still acts through concrete persons.\r\nThe persons are now officers, representatives of a public\r\nand shared interest. The difference is an important\r\none. But it is not a difference between single human\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_19\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbeings and a collective impersonal will. It is between\r\npersons in their private and in their official or representative\r\ncharacter. The quality presented is not\r\nauthorship but authority, the authority of recognized\r\nconsequences to control the behavior which generates\r\nand averts extensive and enduring results of weal and\r\nwoe. Officials are indeed public agents, but agents in\r\nthe sense of factors doing the business of others in\r\nsecuring and obviating consequences that concern\r\nthem.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhen we look in the wrong place we naturally do\r\nnot find what we are looking for. The worst of it\r\nis, however, that looking in the wrong place, to causal\r\nforces instead of consequences, the outcome of the\r\nlooking becomes arbitrary. There is no check on it.\r\n“Interpretation” runs wild. Hence the variety of conflicting\r\ntheories and the lack of consensus of opinion.\r\nOne might argue \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003ea priori\u003c/i\u003e that the continual conflict of\r\ntheories about the state is itself proof that the problem\r\nhas been wrongly posed. For, as we have previously\r\nremarked, the main facts of political action, while the\r\nphenomena vary immensely with diversity of time and\r\nplace, are not hidden even when they are complex.\r\nThey are facts of human behavior accessible to human\r\nobservation. Existence of a multitude of contradictory\r\ntheories of the state, which is so baffling from the\r\nstandpoint of the theories themselves, is readily explicable\r\nthe moment we see that all the theories,\r\nin spite of their divergence from one another, spring\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_20\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e\r\nfrom a root of shared error: the taking of causal\r\nagency instead of consequences as the heart of the problem.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eGiven this attitude and postulate, some men at some\r\ntime will find the causal agency in a metaphysical nisus\r\nattributed to nature; and the state will then be explained\r\nin terms of an “essence” of man realizing itself\r\nin an end of perfected Society. Others, influenced by\r\nother preconceptions and other desires, will find the required\r\nauthor in the will of God reproducing through\r\nthe medium of fallen humanity such an image of divine\r\norder and justice as the corrupt material allows.\r\nOthers seek for it in the meeting of the wills of individuals\r\nwho come together and by contract or mutual\r\npledging of loyalties bring a state into existence. Still\r\nothers find it in an autonomous and transcendent will\r\nembodied in all men as a universal within their particular\r\nbeings, a will which by its own inner nature commands\r\nthe establishment of external conditions in which\r\nit is possible for will to express outwardly its freedom.\r\nOthers find it in the fact that mind or reason is either an\r\nattribute of reality or is reality itself, while they condole\r\nthat difference and plurality of minds, individuality,\r\nis an illusion attributable to sense, or is merely an\r\nappearance in contrast with the monistic reality of reason.\r\nWhen various opinions all spring from a common\r\nand shared error, one is as good as another, and the\r\naccidents of education, temperament, class interest and\r\nthe dominant circumstances of the age decide which is\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_21\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\r\nadopted. Reason comes into play only to find justification\r\nfor the opinion which has been adopted, instead of\r\nto analyze human behavior with respect to its consequences\r\nand to frame polities accordingly. It is an old\r\nstory that natural philosophy steadily progressed only\r\nafter an intellectual revolution. This consisted in\r\nabandoning the search for causes and forces and turning\r\nto the analysis of what is going on and how it goes\r\non. Political philosophy has still in large measure to\r\ntake to heart this lesson.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe failure to note that the problem is that of perceiving\r\nin a discriminating and thorough way the consequences\r\nof human action (including negligence and\r\ninaction) and of instituting measures and means of\r\ncaring for these consequences is not confined to production\r\nof conflicting and irreconcilable theories of the\r\nstate. The failure has also had the effect of perverting\r\nthe views of those who, up to a certain point, perceived\r\nthe truth. We have asserted that all deliberate choices\r\nand plans are finally the work of single human beings.\r\nThoroughly false conclusions have been drawn from\r\nthis observation. By thinking still in terms of causal\r\nforces, the conclusion has been drawn from this fact\r\nthat the state, the public, is a fiction, a mask for private\r\ndesires for power and position. Not only the\r\nstate but society itself has been pulverized into an\r\naggregate of unrelated wants and wills. As a logical\r\nconsequence, the state is conceived either as sheer oppression\r\nborn of arbitrary power and sustained in\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_22\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e\r\nfraud, or as a pooling of the forces of single men into\r\na massive force which single persons are unable to\r\nresist, the pooling being a measure of desperation since\r\nits sole alternative is the conflict of all with all which\r\ngenerates a life that is helpless and brutish. Thus the\r\nstate appears either a monster to be destroyed or as\r\na Leviathan to be cherished. In short, under the influence\r\nof the prime fallacy that the problem of the\r\nstate concerns causal forces, individualism, as an ism,\r\nas a philosophy, has been generated.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhile the doctrine is false, it sets out from a fact.\r\nWants, choices and purposes have their locus in single\r\nbeings; behavior which manifests desire, intent and\r\nresolution proceeds from them in their singularity. But\r\nonly intellectual laziness leads us to conclude that since\r\nthe form of thought and decision is individual, their\r\ncontent, their subject-matter, is also something purely\r\npersonal. Even if “consciousness” were the wholly private\r\nmatter that the individualistic tradition in philosophy\r\nand psychology supposes it to be, it would still\r\nbe true that consciousness is \u003cem\u003eof\u003c/em\u003e objects, not of itself.\r\nAssociation in the sense of connection and combination\r\nis a “law” of everything known to exist. Singular\r\nthings act, but they act together. Nothing has been\r\ndiscovered which acts in entire isolation. The action\r\nof everything is along with the action of other things.\r\nThe “along with” is of such a kind that the behavior\r\nof each is modified by its connection with others.\r\nThere are trees which can grow only in a forest. Seeds\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_23\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof many plants can successfully germinate and develop\r\nonly under conditions furnished by the presence of\r\nother plants. Reproduction of kind is dependent upon\r\nthe activities of insects which bring about fertilization.\r\nThe life-history of an animal cell is conditioned upon\r\nconnection with what other cells are doing. Electrons,\r\natoms and molecules exemplify the omnipresence\r\nof conjoint behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere is no mystery about the fact of association,\r\nof an interconnected action which affects the activity of\r\nsingular elements. There is no sense in asking how\r\nindividuals come to be associated. They exist and operate\r\nin association. If there is any mystery about the\r\nmatter, it is the mystery that the universe is the kind\r\nof universe it is. Such a mystery could not be explained\r\nwithout going outside the universe. And if one\r\nshould go to an outside source to account for it, some\r\nlogician, without an excessive draft upon his ingenuity,\r\nwould rise to remark that the outsider would have to be\r\nconnected with the universe in order to account for\r\nanything in it. We should still be just where we\r\nstarted, with the fact of connection as a fact to be\r\naccepted.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere is, however, an intelligible question about human\r\nassociation:—Not the question how individuals or\r\nsingular beings come to be connected, but how they\r\ncome to be connected in just those ways which give\r\nhuman communities traits so different from those which\r\nmark assemblies of electrons, unions of trees in forests,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_24\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e\r\nswarms of insects, herds of sheep, and constellations of\r\nstars. When we consider the difference we at once\r\ncome upon the fact that the consequences of conjoint\r\naction take on a new value when they are observed.\r\nFor notice of the effects of connected action forces men\r\nto reflect upon the connection itself; it makes it an object\r\nof attention and interest. Each acts, in so far\r\nas the connection is known, in view of the connection.\r\nIndividuals still do the thinking, desiring and purposing,\r\nbut \u003cem\u003ewhat\u003c/em\u003e they think of is the consequences of their\r\nbehavior upon that of others and that of others\r\nupon themselves.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eEach human being is born an infant. He is immature,\r\nhelpless, dependent upon the activities of others.\r\nThat many of these dependent beings survive is proof\r\nthat others in some measure look out for them, take\r\ncare of them. Mature and better equipped beings are\r\naware of the consequences of their acts upon those of\r\nthe young. They not only act conjointly with them,\r\nbut they act in that especial kind of association which\r\nmanifests interest in the consequences of their conduct\r\nupon the life and growth of the young.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eContinued physiological existence of the young is\r\nonly one phase of interest in the consequences of association.\r\nAdults are equally concerned to act so that\r\nthe immature learn to think, feel, desire and habitually\r\nconduct themselves in certain ways. Not the least of\r\nthe consequences which are striven for is that the\r\nyoung shall themselves learn to judge, purpose and\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_25\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e\r\nchoose from the standpoint of associated behavior and\r\nits consequences. In fact, only too often this interest\r\ntakes the form of endeavoring to make the young believe\r\nand plan just as adults do. This instance alone\r\nis enough to show that while singular beings in their\r\nsingularity think, want and decide, \u003cem\u003ewhat\u003c/em\u003e they think\r\nand strive for, the content of their beliefs and intentions\r\nis a subject-matter provided by association.\r\nThus man is not merely \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003ede facto\u003c/i\u003e associated, but he\r\n\u003cem\u003ebecomes\u003c/em\u003e a social animal in the make-up of his\r\nideas, sentiments and deliberate behavior. \u003cem\u003eWhat\u003c/em\u003e he\r\nbelieves, hopes for and aims at is the outcome of association\r\nand intercourse. The only thing which imports\r\nobscurity and mystery into the influence of association\r\nupon what individual persons want and act for is the\r\neffort to discover alleged, special, original, society-making\r\ncausal forces, whether instincts, fiats of will, personal,\r\nor an immanent, universal, practical reason, or\r\nan indwelling, metaphysical, social essence and nature.\r\nThese things do not explain, for they are more mysterious\r\nthan are the facts they are evoked to account\r\nfor. The planets in a constellation would form a community\r\nif they were aware of the connections of the\r\nactivities of each with those of the others and could\r\nuse this knowledge to direct behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe have made a digression from consideration of\r\nthe state to the wider topic of society. However, the\r\nexcursion enables us to distinguish the state from other\r\nforms of social life. There is an old tradition which\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_26\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e\r\nregards the state and completely organized society as\r\nthe same thing. The state is said to be the complete\r\nand inclusive realization of all social institutions.\r\nWhatever values result from any and every social arrangement\r\nare gathered together and asserted to be\r\nthe work of the state. The counterpart of this method\r\nis that philosophical anarchism which assembles all the\r\nevils that result from all forms of human grouping and\r\nattributes them \u003ci lang=\"fr\"\u003een masse\u003c/i\u003e to the state, whose elimination\r\nwould then bring in a millennium of voluntary fraternal\r\norganization. That the state should be to some a deity\r\nand to others a devil is another evidence of the defects\r\nof the premises from which discussion sets out. One\r\ntheory is as indiscriminate as the other.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere is, however, a definite criterion by which to\r\ndemarcate the organized public from other modes of\r\ncommunity life. Friendships, for example, are non-political\r\nforms of association. They are characterized\r\nby an intimate and subtle sense of the fruits of intercourse.\r\nThey contribute to experience some of its most\r\nprecious values. Only the exigencies of a preconceived\r\ntheory would confuse with the state that texture of\r\nfriendships and attachments which is the chief bond in\r\nany community, or would insist that the former depends\r\nupon the latter for existence. Men group themselves\r\nalso for scientific inquiry, for religious worship, for\r\nartistic production and enjoyment, for sport, for giving\r\nand receiving instruction, for industrial and commercial\r\nundertakings. In each case some combined or conjoint\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_27\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e\r\naction, which has grown up out of “natural,” that\r\nis, biological, conditions and from local contiguity, results\r\nin producing distinctive consequences—that is,\r\nconsequences which differ in kind from those of isolated\r\nbehavior.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhen these consequences are intellectually and emotionally\r\nappreciated, a shared interest is generated\r\nand the nature of the interconnected behavior is\r\nthereby transformed. Each form of association has its\r\nown peculiar quality and value, and no person in his\r\nsenses confuses one with another. The characteristic\r\nof the public as a state springs from the fact that all\r\nmodes of associated behavior may have extensive and\r\nenduring consequences which involve others beyond\r\nthose directly engaged in them. When these consequences\r\nare in turn realized in thought and sentiment,\r\nrecognition of them reacts to remake the conditions out\r\nof which they arose. Consequences have to be taken\r\ncare of, looked out for. This supervision and regulation\r\ncannot be effected by the primary groupings\r\nthemselves. For the essence of the consequences which\r\ncall a public into being is the fact that they expand\r\nbeyond those directly engaged in producing them.\r\nConsequently special agencies and measures must be\r\nformed if they are to be attended to; or else some existing\r\ngroup must take on new functions. The obvious\r\nexternal mark of the organization of a public or of a\r\nstate is thus the existence of officials. Government is\r\nnot the state, for that includes the public as well as the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_28\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e\r\nrulers charged with special duties and powers. The\r\npublic, however, is organized in and through those officers\r\nwho act in behalf of its interests.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThus the state represents an important although distinctive\r\nand restricted social interest. From this point\r\nof view there is nothing extraordinary in the preëminence\r\nof the claims of the organized public over other\r\ninterests when once they are called into play, nor in its\r\ntotal indifference and irrelevancy to friendships, associations\r\nfor science, art and religion under most circumstances.\r\nIf the consequences of a friendship threaten\r\nthe public, then it is treated as a conspiracy; usually\r\nit is not the state’s business or concern. Men\r\njoin each other in partnership as a matter of course\r\nto do a piece of work more profitably or for mutual\r\ndefense. Let its operations exceed a certain limit, and\r\nothers not participating in it find their security or\r\nprosperity menaced by it, and suddenly the gears of\r\nthe state are in mesh. Thus it happens that the state,\r\ninstead of being all absorbing and inclusive, is under\r\nsome circumstances the most idle and empty of social\r\narrangements. Nevertheless, the temptation to generalize\r\nfrom these instances and conclude that the state\r\ngenerically is of no significance is at once challenged\r\nby the fact that when a family connection, a church, a\r\ntrade union, a business corporation, or an educational\r\ninstitution conducts itself so as to affect large numbers\r\noutside of itself, those who are affected form a public\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_29\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwhich endeavors to act through suitable structures, and\r\nthus to organize itself for oversight and regulation.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eI know of no better way in which to apprehend the\r\nabsurdity of the claims which are sometimes made in\r\nbehalf of society politically organized than to call to\r\nmind the influence upon community life of Socrates,\r\nBuddha, Jesus, Aristotle, Confucius, Homer, Vergil,\r\nDante, St. Thomas, Shakespeare, Copernicus, Galileo,\r\nNewton, Boyle, Locke, Rousseau and countless others,\r\nand then to ask ourselves if we conceive these men to be\r\nofficers of the state. Any method which so broadens\r\nthe scope of the state as to lead to such conclusion\r\nmerely makes the state a name for the totality of all\r\nkinds of associations. The moment we have taken the\r\nword as loosely as that, it is at once necessary to distinguish,\r\nwithin it, the state in its usual political and\r\nlegal sense. On the other hand, if one is tempted to\r\neliminate or disregard the state, one may think of\r\nPericles, Alexander, Julius and Augustus Cæsar, Elizabeth,\r\nCromwell, Richelieu, Napoleon, Bismarck and\r\nhundreds of names of that kind. One dimly feels that\r\nthey must have had a private life, but how insignificant\r\nit bulks in comparison with their action as representatives\r\nof a state!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis conception of statehood does not imply any belief\r\nas to the propriety or reasonableness of any particular\r\npolitical act, measure or system. Observations\r\nof consequences are at least as subject to error and\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_30\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e\r\nillusion as is perception of natural objects. Judgments\r\nabout what to undertake so as to regulate them,\r\nand how to do it, are as fallible as other plans. Mistakes\r\npile up and consolidate themselves into laws and\r\nmethods of administration which are more harmful\r\nthan the consequences which they were originally intended\r\nto control. And as all political history shows,\r\nthe power and prestige which attend command of official\r\nposition render rule something to be grasped and\r\nexploited for its own sake. Power to govern is distributed\r\nby the accident of birth or by the possession of\r\nqualities which enable a person to obtain office, but\r\nwhich are quite irrelevant to the performance of its\r\nrepresentative functions. But the need which calls\r\nforth the organization of the public by means of rulers\r\nand agencies of government persists and to some extent\r\nis incarnated in political fact. Such progress as political\r\nhistory records depends upon some luminous emergence\r\nof the idea from the mass of irrelevancies which\r\nobscure and clutter it. Then some reconstruction occurs\r\nwhich provides the function with organs more apt\r\nfor its fulfillment. Progress is not steady and continuous.\r\nRetrogression is as periodic as advance. Industry\r\nand inventions in technology, for example, create\r\nmeans which alter the modes of associated behavior\r\nand which radically change the quantity, character\r\nand place of impact of their indirect consequences.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThese changes are extrinsic to political forms which,\r\nonce established, persist of their own momentum. The\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_31\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e\r\nnew public which is generated remains long inchoate,\r\nunorganized, because it cannot use inherited political\r\nagencies. The latter, if elaborate and well institutionalized,\r\nobstruct the organization of the new public.\r\nThey prevent that development of new forms of the\r\nstate which might grow up rapidly were social life more\r\nfluid, less precipitated into set political and legal\r\nmolds. To form itself, the public has to break existing\r\npolitical forms. This is hard to do because these forms\r\nare themselves the regular means of instituting change.\r\nThe public which generated political forms is passing\r\naway, but the power and lust of possession remains in\r\nthe hands of the officers and agencies which the dying\r\npublic instituted. This is why the change of the form\r\nof states is so often effected only by revolution. The\r\ncreation of adequately flexible and responsive political\r\nand legal machinery has so far been beyond the wit of\r\nman. An epoch in which the needs of a newly forming\r\npublic are counteracted by established forms of the\r\nstate is one in which there is increasing disparagement\r\nand disregard of the state. General apathy, neglect\r\nand contempt find expression in resort to various\r\nshort-cuts of direct action. And direct action is taken\r\nby many other interests than those which employ “direct\r\naction” as a slogan, often most energetically by intrenched\r\nclass-interests which profess the greatest reverence\r\nfor the established “law and order” of the existing\r\nstate. By its very nature, a state is ever something\r\nto be scrutinized, investigated, searched for. Almost\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_32\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e\r\nas soon as its form is stabilized, it needs to be\r\nre-made.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThus the problem of discovering the state is not a\r\nproblem for theoretical inquirers engaged solely in surveying\r\ninstitutions which already exist. It is a practical\r\nproblem of human beings living in association with\r\none another, of mankind generically. It is a complex\r\nproblem. It demands power to perceive and recognize\r\nthe consequences of the behavior of individuals joined in\r\ngroups and to trace them to their source and origin. It\r\ninvolves selection of persons to serve as representatives\r\nof the interests created by these perceived consequences\r\nand to define the functions which they shall possess and\r\nemploy. It requires institution of a government such\r\nthat those having the renown and power which goes\r\nwith the exercise of these functions shall employ them\r\nfor the public and not turn them to their own private\r\nbenefit. It is no cause for wonder, then, that states\r\nhave been many, not only in number but in type and\r\nkind. For there have been countless forms of joint\r\nactivity with correspondingly diverse consequences.\r\nPower to detect consequences has varied especially\r\nwith the instrumentalities of knowledge at hand.\r\nRulers have been selected on all kinds of different\r\ngrounds. Their functions have varied and so have\r\ntheir will and zeal to represent common interests. Only\r\nthe exigencies of a rigid philosophy can lead us to suppose\r\nthat there is some one form or idea of The State\r\nwhich these protean historic states have realized in\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_33\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e\r\nvarious degrees of perfection. The only statement\r\nwhich can be made is a purely formal one: the state is\r\nthe organization of the public effected through officials\r\nfor the protection of the interests shared by its members.\r\nBut what the public may be, what the officials\r\nare, how adequately they perform their function, are\r\nthings we have to go to history to discover.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eNevertheless, our conception gives a criterion for determining\r\nhow good a particular state is: namely, the\r\ndegree of organization of the public which is attained,\r\nand the degree in which its officers are so constituted as\r\nto perform their function of caring for public interests.\r\nBut there is no \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003ea priori\u003c/i\u003e rule which can be laid down and\r\nby which when it is followed a good state will be brought\r\ninto existence. In no two ages or places is there the\r\nsame public. Conditions make the consequences of\r\nassociated action and the knowledge of them different.\r\nIn addition the means by which a public can determine\r\nthe government to serve its interests vary. Only formally\r\ncan we say what the best state would be. In concrete\r\nfact, in actual and concrete organization and\r\nstructure, there is no form of state which can be said to\r\nbe the best: not at least till history is ended, and one can\r\nsurvey all its varied forms. The formation of states\r\nmust be an experimental process. The trial process\r\nmay go on with diverse degrees of blindness and accident,\r\nand at the cost of unregulated procedures of cut\r\nand try, of fumbling and groping, without insight into\r\nwhat men are after or clear knowledge of a good state\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_34\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e\r\neven when it is achieved. Or it may proceed more intelligently,\r\nbecause guided by knowledge of the conditions\r\nwhich must be fulfilled. But it is still experimental.\r\nAnd since conditions of action and of inquiry\r\nand knowledge are always changing, the experiment\r\nmust always be retried; the State must always be rediscovered.\r\nExcept, once more, in formal statement of\r\nconditions to be met, we have no idea what history may\r\nstill bring forth. It is not the business of political\r\nphilosophy and science to determine what the state in\r\ngeneral should or must be. What they may do is to aid\r\nin creation of methods such that experimentation may\r\ngo on less blindly, less at the mercy of accident, more\r\nintelligently, so that men may learn from their errors\r\nand profit by their successes. The belief in political\r\nfixity, of the sanctity of some form of state consecrated\r\nby the efforts of our fathers and hallowed by\r\ntradition, is one of the stumbling-blocks in the way of\r\norderly and directed change; it is an invitation to revolt\r\nand revolution.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAs the argument has moved to and fro, it will conduce\r\nto clearness to summarize its steps. Conjoint,\r\ncombined, associated action is a universal trait of the\r\nbehavior of things. Such action has results. Some of\r\nthe results of human collective action are perceived,\r\nthat is, they are noted in such ways that they are\r\ntaken account of. Then there arise purposes, plans,\r\nmeasures and means, to secure consequences which are\r\nliked and eliminate those which are found obnoxious.\r\nThus perception generates a common interest; that is,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_35\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthose affected by the consequences are perforce concerned\r\nin conduct of all those who along with themselves\r\nshare in bringing about the results. Sometimes\r\nthe consequences are confined to those who directly\r\nshare in the transaction which produces them. In\r\nother cases they extend far beyond those immediately\r\nengaged in producing them. Thus two kinds of interests\r\nand of measures of regulation of acts in view of\r\nconsequences are generated. In the first, interest and\r\ncontrol are limited to those directly engaged; in the\r\nsecond, they extend to those who do not directly share\r\nin the performance of acts. If, then, the interest constituted\r\nby their being affected by the actions in question\r\nis to have any practical influence, control over the\r\nactions which produce them must occur by some indirect\r\nmeans.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eSo far the statements, it is submitted, set forth matters\r\nof actual and ascertainable fact. Now follows\r\nthe hypothesis. Those indirectly and seriously affected\r\nfor good or for evil form a group distinctive enough\r\nto require recognition and a name. The name selected\r\nis The Public. This public is organized and made\r\neffective by means of representatives who as guardians\r\nof custom, as legislators, as executives, judges, etc.,\r\ncare for its especial interests by methods intended to\r\nregulate the conjoint actions of individuals and groups.\r\nThen and in so far, association adds to itself political\r\norganization, and something which may be government\r\ncomes into being: the public is a political state.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe direct confirmation of the hypothesis is found\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_36\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e\r\nin the statement of the series of observable and verifiable\r\nmatters of fact. These constitute conditions\r\nwhich are sufficient to account, so it is held, for the\r\ncharacteristic phenomena of political life, or state\r\nactivity. If they do, it is superfluous to seek for other\r\nexplanation. In conclusion, two qualifications should\r\nbe added. The account just given is meant to be\r\ngeneric; it is consequently schematic, and omits many\r\ndifferential conditions, some of which receive attention\r\nin subsequent chapters. The other point is that in\r\nthe negative part of the argument, the attack upon\r\ntheories which would explain the state by means of\r\nspecial causal forces and agencies, there is no denial\r\nof causal relations or connections among phenomena\r\nthemselves. That is obviously assumed at every point.\r\nThere can be no consequences and measures to regulate\r\nthe mode and quality of their occurrence without the\r\ncausal nexus. What is denied is an appeal to \u003cem\u003especial\u003c/em\u003e\r\nforces outside the series of observable connected\r\nphenomena. Such causal powers are no different in\r\nkind to the occult forces from which physical science\r\nhad to emancipate itself. At best, they are but phases\r\nof the related phenomena themselves which are then\r\nemployed to account for the facts. What is needed to\r\ndirect and make fruitful social inquiry is a method\r\nwhich proceeds on the basis of the interrelations of\r\nobservable acts and their results. Such is the gist of\r\nthe method we propose to follow.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap x-ebookmaker-drop\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_37\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch2 class=\"nobreak\" id=\"toclink_37\"\u003eCHAPTER II\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cspan class=\"subhead\"\u003eDISCOVERY OF THE STATE\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIf we look in the wrong place for the public we shall\r\nnever locate the state. If we do not ask what are\r\nthe conditions which promote and obstruct the organization\r\nof the public into a social group with definite\r\nfunctions, we shall never grasp the problem involved in\r\nthe development and transformation of states. If\r\nwe do not perceive that this organization is equivalent\r\nto the equipment of the public with official representatives\r\nto care for the interests of the public, we shall\r\nmiss the clew to the nature of government. These are\r\nconclusions reached or suggested by the discussion of\r\nthe last hour. The wrong place to look, as we saw, is\r\nin the realm of alleged causal agency, of authorship,\r\nof forces which are supposed to produce a state by an\r\nintrinsic \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003evis genetrix\u003c/i\u003e. The state is not created as a\r\ndirect result of organic contacts as offspring are conceived\r\nin the womb, nor by direct conscious intent as a\r\nmachine is invented, nor by some brooding indwelling\r\nspirit, whether a personal deity or a metaphysical absolute\r\nwill. When we seek for the origin of states in\r\nsuch sources as these, a realistic regard for facts compels\r\nus to conclude in the end that we find nothing but\r\nsingular persons, you, they, me. We shall then be\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_38\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e\r\ndriven, unless we have recourse to mysticism, to decide\r\nthat the public is born in a myth and is sustained by\r\nsuperstition.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere are many answers to the question: What is\r\nthe public? Unfortunately many of them are only\r\nrestatements of the question. Thus we are told that\r\nthe public is the community as a whole, and a-community-as-a-whole\r\nis supposed to be a self-evident and\r\nself-explanatory phenomenon. But a community as\r\na \u003cem\u003ewhole\u003c/em\u003e involves not merely a variety of associative ties\r\nwhich hold persons together in diverse ways, but an\r\norganization of all elements by an integrated principle.\r\nAnd this is precisely what we are in search of. Why\r\nshould there be anything of the nature of an all-inclusive\r\nand regulative unity? If we postulate such a thing,\r\nsurely the institution which alone would answer to it\r\nis humanity, not the affairs which history exhibits as\r\nstates. The notion of an inherent universality in the\r\nassociative force at once breaks against the obvious\r\nfact of a plurality of states, each localized, with its\r\nboundaries, limitations, its indifference and even hostility\r\nto other states. The best that metaphysical\r\nmonistic philosophies of politics can do with this fact\r\nis to ignore it. Or, as in the case of Hegel and his\r\nfollowers, a mythical philosophy of history is constructed\r\nto eke out the deficiencies of a mythical doctrine\r\nof statehood. The universal spirit seizes upon\r\none temporal and local nation after another as the\r\nvehicle for its objectification of reason and will.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_39\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eSuch considerations as these reinforce our proposition\r\nthat the perception of consequences which are projected\r\nin important ways beyond the persons and\r\nassociations directly concerned in them is the source\r\nof a public; and that its organization into a state is\r\neffected by establishing special agencies to care for\r\nand regulate these consequences. But they also suggest\r\nthat actual states exhibit traits which perform the\r\nfunction that has been stated and which serve as\r\nmarks of anything to be called a state. Discussion of\r\nthese traits will define the nature of the public and\r\nthe problem of its political organization, and will also\r\noperate to test our theory.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe can hardly select a better trait to serve as a\r\nmark and sign of the nature of a state than a point\r\njust mentioned, temporal and geographical localization.\r\nThere are associations which are too narrow\r\nand restricted in scope to give rise to a public, just\r\nas there are associations too isolated from one another\r\nto fall within the same public. Part of the problem\r\nof discovery of a public capable of organization into\r\na state is that of drawing lines between the too close\r\nand intimate and the too remote and disconnected.\r\nImmediate contiguity, face to face relationships, have\r\nconsequences which generate a community of interests,\r\na sharing of values, too direct and vital to occasion\r\na need for political organization. Connections within\r\na family are familiar; they are matters of immediate\r\nacquaintance and concern. The so-called blood-tie\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_40\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwhich has played such a part in demarcation of social\r\nunits is largely imputed on the basis of sharing immediately\r\nin the results of conjoint behavior. What\r\none does in the household affects others directly and\r\nthe consequences are appreciated at once and in an\r\nintimate way. As we say, they “come home.” Special\r\norganization to care for them is a superfluity. Only\r\nwhen the tie has extended to a union of families in a\r\nclan and of clans in a tribe do consequences become\r\nso indirect that special measures are called for. The\r\nneighborhood is constituted largely on the same pattern\r\nof association that is exemplified in the family.\r\nCustom and measures improvised to meet special\r\nemergencies as they arise suffice for its regulation.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eConsider the village in Wiltshire so beautifully\r\ndescribed by Hudson: “Each house has its center of\r\nhuman life with life of bird and beast, and the centers\r\nwere in touch with one another, connected like a row\r\nof children linked together by their hands; all together\r\nforming one organism, instinct with one life, moved by\r\none mind, like a many-colored serpent lying at rest,\r\nextended at full length upon the ground. I imagined\r\nthe case of a cottager at one end of the village occupied\r\nin chopping up a tough piece of wood or stump\r\nand accidentally letting fall his heavy sharp axe on to\r\nhis foot, inflicting a grievous wound. The tidings of\r\nthe accident would fly from mouth to mouth to the\r\nother extremity of the village, a mile distant; not only\r\nwould each villager quickly know of it, but have at\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_41\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe same time a vivid mental image of his fellow\r\nvillager at the moment of his misadventure, the sharp\r\nglittering axe falling on to his foot, the red blood flowing\r\nfrom the wound; and he would at the same time feel\r\nthe wound in his own foot and the shock to his system.\r\nIn like manner all thoughts and feelings would pass\r\nfreely from one to another, though not necessarily\r\ncommunicated by speech; and all would be participants\r\nin virtue of that sympathy and solidarity uniting the\r\nmembers of a small isolated community. No one would\r\nbe capable of a thought or emotion which would seem\r\nstrange to the others. The temper, the mood, the outlook\r\nof the individual and the village, would be the\r\nsame.”\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_1\" href=\"#Footnote_1\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e1\u003c/a\u003e With such a condition of intimacy, the state\r\nis an impertinence.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eFor long periods of human history, especially in\r\nthe Orient, the state is hardly more than a shadow\r\nthrown upon the family and neighborhood by remote\r\npersonages, swollen to gigantic form by religious beliefs.\r\nIt rules but it does not regulate; for its rule is\r\nconfined to receipt of tribute and ceremonial deference.\r\nDuties are within the family; property is possessed\r\nby the family. Personal loyalties to elders take the\r\nplace of political obedience. The relationships of husband\r\nand wife, parent and children, older and younger\r\nchildren, friend and friend, are the bonds from which\r\nauthority proceeds. Politics is not a branch of morals;\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_42\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e\r\nit is submerged in morals. All virtues are summed\r\nup in filial piety. Wrongdoing is culpable because\r\nit reflects upon one’s ancestry and kin. Officials are\r\nknown but only to be shunned. To submit a dispute\r\nto them is a disgrace. The measure of value of the\r\nremote and theocratic state lies in what it does \u003cem\u003enot\u003c/em\u003e\r\ndo. Its perfection is found in its identification with\r\nthe processes of nature, in virtue of which the seasons\r\ntravel their constant round, so that fields under the\r\nbeneficent rule of sun and rain produce their harvest,\r\nand the neighborhood prospers in peace. The intimate\r\nand familiar propinquity group is not a social unity\r\nwithin an inclusive whole. It is, for almost all purposes,\r\nsociety itself.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAt the other limit there are social groups so\r\nseparated by rivers, seas and mountains, by strange\r\nlanguages and gods, that what one of them does—save\r\nin war—has no appreciable consequences for another.\r\nThere is therefore no common interest, no public, and\r\nno need nor possibility of an inclusive state. The\r\nplurality of states is such a universal and notorious\r\nphenomenon that it is taken for granted. It does not\r\nseem to require explanation. But it sets up, as we\r\nhave noted, a test difficult for some theories to meet.\r\nExcept upon the basis of a freakish limitation in the\r\ncommon will and reason which is alleged to be the\r\nfoundation of the state, the difficulty is insuperable. It\r\nis peculiar, to say the least, that universal reason\r\nshould be unable to cross a mountain range and objective\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_43\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwill be balked by a river current. The difficulty\r\nis not so great for many other theories. But only\r\nthe theory which makes recognition of consequences\r\nthe critical factor can find in the fact of many\r\nstates a corroborating trait. Whatever is a barrier\r\nto the spread of the consequences of associated behavior\r\nby that very fact operates to set up political\r\nboundaries. The explanation is as commonplace as is\r\nthe thing to be explained.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eSomewhere between associations that are narrow,\r\nclose and intimate and those which are so remote as\r\nto have only infrequent and casual contact lies, then,\r\nthe province of a state. We do not find and should\r\nnot expect to find sharp and fast demarcations. Villages\r\nand neighborhoods shade imperceptibly into a\r\npolitical public. Different states may pass through\r\nfederations and alliances into a larger whole which has\r\nsome of the marks of statehood. This condition, which\r\nwe should anticipate in virtue of the theory, is confirmed\r\nby historical facts. The wavering and shifting\r\nline of distinction between a state and other forms of\r\nsocial union is, again, an obstacle in the way of\r\ntheories of the state which imply as their concrete\r\ncounterpart something as sharply marked off as is\r\nthe concept. On the basis of empirical consequences,\r\nit is just the sort of thing which should occur. There\r\nare empires due to conquest where political rule exists\r\nonly in forced levies of taxes and soldiers, and in\r\nwhich, though the word state may be used, the characteristic\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_44\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e\r\nsigns of a public are notable for their absence.\r\nThere are political communities like the city-states of\r\nancient Greece in which the fiction of common descent\r\nis a vital factor, in which household gods and worship\r\nare replaced by community divinities, shrines, and\r\ncults: states in which much of the intimacy of the\r\nvivid and prompt personal touch of the family endures,\r\nwhile there has been added the transforming inspiration\r\nof a varied, freer, fuller life, whose issues are so\r\nmomentous that in comparison the life of the neighborhood\r\nis parochial and that of the household dull.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eMultiplicity and constant transformation in the\r\nforms which the state assumes are as comprehensible\r\nupon the hypothesis proposed as is the numerical\r\ndiversity of independent states. The consequences of\r\nconjoint behavior differ in kind and in range with\r\nchanges in “material culture,” especially those involved\r\nin exchange of raw materials, finished products and\r\nabove all in technology, in tools, weapons and utensils.\r\nThese in turn are immediately affected by inventions in\r\nmeans of transit, transportation and intercommunication.\r\nA people that lives by tending flocks of sheep\r\nand cattle adapts itself to very different conditions\r\nthan those of a people which ranges freely, mounted\r\non horses. One form of nomadism is usually peaceful;\r\nthe other warlike. Roughly speaking, tools and implements\r\ndetermine occupations, and occupations determine\r\nthe consequences of associated activity. In\r\ndetermining consequences, they institute publics with\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_45\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e\r\ndifferent interests, which exact different types of\r\npolitical behavior to care for them.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn spite of the fact that diversity of political forms\r\nrather than uniformity is the rule, belief in \u003cem\u003ethe\u003c/em\u003e state\r\nas an archetypal entity persists in political philosophy\r\nand science. Much dialectical ingenuity has been expended\r\nin construction of an essence or intrinsic nature\r\nin virtue of which any particular association is entitled\r\nto have applied to it the concept of statehood.\r\nEqual ingenuity has been expended in explaining away\r\nall divergencies from this morphological type, and (the\r\nfavored device) in ranking states in a hierarchical\r\norder of value as they approach the defining essence.\r\nThe idea that there is a model pattern which makes a\r\nstate a \u003cem\u003egood\u003c/em\u003e or true state has affected practice as well\r\nas theory. It, more than anything else, is responsible\r\nfor the effort to form constitutions offhand and impose\r\nthem ready-made on peoples. Unfortunately, when the\r\nfalsity of this view was perceived, it was replaced by\r\nthe idea that states “grow” or develop instead of being\r\nmade. This “growth” did not mean simply that states\r\nalter. Growth signified an evolution through regular\r\nstages to a predetermined end because of some intrinsic\r\nnisus or principle. This theory discouraged recourse to\r\nthe only method by which alterations of political forms\r\nmight be directed: namely, the use of intelligence to\r\njudge consequences. Equally with the theory which\r\nit displaced, it presumed the existence of a single\r\nstandard form which defines \u003cem\u003ethe\u003c/em\u003e state as the essential\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_46\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e\r\nand true article. After a false analogy with physical\r\nscience, it was asserted that only the assumption of\r\nsuch a uniformity of process renders a “scientific”\r\ntreatment of society possible. Incidentally, the theory\r\nflattered the conceit of those nations which, being\r\npolitically “advanced,” assumed that they were so near\r\nthe apex of evolution as to wear the crown of statehood.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe hypothesis presented makes possible a consistently\r\nempirical or \u003cem\u003ehistorical\u003c/em\u003e treatment of the\r\nchanges in political forms and arrangements, free from\r\nany overriding conceptual domination such as is inevitable\r\nwhen a “true” state is postulated, whether\r\nthat be thought of as deliberately made or as\r\nevolving by its own inner law. Intrusions from non-political\r\ninternal occurrences, industrial and technological,\r\nand from external events, borrowings, travel,\r\nmigrations, explorations, wars, modify the consequences\r\nof preëxisting associations to such an extent that new\r\nagencies and functions are necessitated. Political\r\nforms are also subject to alterations of a more indirect\r\nsort. Developments of better methods of thinking\r\nbring about observation of consequences which were\r\nconcealed from a vision which used coarser intellectual\r\ntools. Quickened intellectual insight also makes possible\r\ninvention of new political devices. Science has\r\nnot indeed played a large rôle. But intuitions of\r\nstatesmen and of political theorists have occasionally\r\npenetrated into the operations of social forces in such\r\na way that a new turn has been given to legislation\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_47\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e\r\nand to administration. There is a margin of toleration\r\nin the body politic as well as in an organic body.\r\nMeasures not in any sense inevitable are accommodated\r\nto after they have once been taken; and a further\r\ndiversity is thereby introduced in political manners.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn short, the hypothesis which holds that publics\r\nare constituted by recognition of extensive and enduring\r\nindirect consequences of acts accounts for the\r\nrelativity of states, while the theories which define\r\nthem in terms of specific causal authorship imply an\r\nabsoluteness which is contradicted by facts. The attempt\r\nto find by the “comparative method” structures\r\nwhich are common to antique and modern, to occidental\r\nand oriental states, has involved a great waste of industry.\r\nThe only constant is the function of caring\r\nfor and regulating the interests which accrue as the\r\nresult of the complex indirect expansion and radiation\r\nof conjoint behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe conclude, then, that temporal and local diversification\r\nis a prime mark of political organization, and\r\none which, when it is analyzed, supplies a confirming test\r\nof our theory. A second mark and evidence is found\r\nin an otherwise inexplicable fact that the quantitative\r\nscope of results of conjoint behavior generates a public\r\nwith need for organization. As we already noted, what\r\nare now crimes subject to public cognizance and adjudication\r\nwere once private ebullitions, having the\r\nstatus now possessed by an insult proffered by one to\r\nanother. An interesting phase of the transition from\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_48\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe relatively private to the public, at least from a\r\nlimited public to a larger one, is seen in the development\r\nin England of the King’s Peace. Justice until\r\nthe twelfth century was administered mainly by feudal\r\nand shire courts, courts of hundreds, etc. Any lord\r\nwho had a sufficient number of subjects and tenants\r\ndecided controversies and imposed penalties. The\r\ncourt and justice of the king was but one among many,\r\nand primarily concerned with royalty’s tenants, servants,\r\nproperties and dignities. The monarchs wished,\r\nhowever, to increase their revenues and expand their\r\npower and prestige. Various devices were invented and\r\nfictions set up by means of which the jurisdiction of\r\nkingly courts was extended. The method was to allege\r\nthat various offenses, formerly attended to by\r\nlocal courts, were infractions of the king’s peace. The\r\ncentralizing movement went on till the king’s justice\r\nhad a monopoly. The instance is significant. A\r\nmeasure instigated by desire to increase the power and\r\nprofit of the royal dynasty became an impersonal\r\npublic function by bare extension. The same sort of\r\nthing has repeatedly occurred when personal prerogatives\r\nhave passed into normal political processes.\r\nSomething of the same sort is manifested in contemporary\r\nlife when modes of private business become\r\n“affected with a public interest” because of quantitative\r\nexpansion.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eA converse instance is presented in transfer from\r\npublic to private domain of religious rites and beliefs.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_49\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e\r\nAs long as the prevailing mentality thought that the\r\nconsequences of piety and irreligion affected the entire\r\ncommunity, religion was of necessity a public affair.\r\nScrupulous adherence to the customary cult was of\r\nthe highest political import. Gods were tribal ancestors\r\nor founders of the community. They granted\r\ncommunal prosperity when they were duly acknowledged\r\nand were the authors of famine, pestilence and defeat in\r\nwar if their interests were not zealously attended to.\r\nNaturally when religious acts had such extended consequences,\r\ntemples were public buildings, like the agora\r\nand forum; rites were civic functions and priests public\r\nofficials. Long after theocracy vanished, theurgy was\r\na political institution. Even when disbelief was rife,\r\nfew there were who would run the risk of neglecting\r\nthe ceremonials.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe revolution by which piety and worship were\r\nrelegated to the private sphere is often attributed to\r\nthe rise of personal conscience and assertion of its\r\nrights. But this rise is just the thing to be accounted\r\nfor. The supposition that it was there all the time in\r\na submerged condition and finally dared to show itself\r\nreverses the order of events. Social changes, both intellectual\r\nand in the internal composition and external\r\nrelations of peoples, took place so that men no\r\nlonger connected attitudes of reverence or disrespect\r\nto the gods with the weal and woe of the community.\r\nFaith and unbelief still had serious consequences, but\r\nthese were now thought to be confined to the temporal\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_50\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e\r\nand eternal happiness of the persons directly concerned.\r\nGiven the other belief, and persecution and intolerance\r\nare as justifiable as is organized hostility to\r\nany crime; impiety is the most dangerous of all threats\r\nto public peace and well-being. But social changes\r\ngradually effected as one of the new functions of the\r\nlife of the community the rights of private conscience\r\nand creed.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn general, behavior in intellectual matters has\r\nmoved from the public to the private realm. This\r\nradical change was, of course, urged and justified on\r\nthe ground of intrinsic and sacred private right. But,\r\nas in the special case of religious beliefs, it is strange,\r\nif this reason be accepted, that mankind lived so long\r\nin total unawareness of the existence of the right. In\r\nfact, the idea of a purely private area of consciousness,\r\nwhere whatever goes on has no external consequences,\r\nwas in the first instance a product of institutional\r\nchange, political and ecclesiastic, although, like other\r\nbeliefs, once it was established it had political results.\r\nThe observation that the interests of the community\r\nare better cared for when there is permitted a large\r\nmeasure of personal judgment and choice in the formation\r\nof intellectual conclusions, is an observation which\r\ncould hardly have been made until social mobility and\r\nheterogeneity had brought about initiation and invention\r\nin technological matters and industry, and until\r\nsecular pursuits had become formidable rivals to church\r\nand state. Even yet, however, toleration in matters of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_51\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e\r\njudgment and belief is largely a negative matter. We\r\nagree to leave one another alone (within limits) more\r\nfrom recognition of evil consequences which have resulted\r\nfrom the opposite course rather than from any\r\nprofound belief in its positive social beneficence. As\r\nlong as the latter consequence is not widely perceived,\r\nthe so-called natural right to private judgment will remain\r\na somewhat precarious rationalization of the\r\nmoderate amount of toleration which has come into\r\nbeing. Such phenomena as the Ku Klux and legislative\r\nactivity to regulate science show that the belief\r\nin liberty of thought is still superficial.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIf I make an appointment with a dentist or doctor,\r\nthe transaction is primarily between us. It is my\r\nhealth which is affected and his pocket-book, skill and\r\nreputation. But exercise of the professions has consequences\r\nso widespread that the examination and\r\nlicensing of persons who practice them becomes a public\r\nmatter. John Smith buys or sells real estate. The\r\ntransaction is effected by himself and some other person.\r\nLand, however, is of prime importance to society,\r\nand the private transaction is hedged about with legal\r\nregulations; evidence of transfer and ownership has to\r\nbe recorded with a public official in forms publicly\r\nprescribed. The choice of a mate and the act of sexual\r\nunion are intimately personal. But the act is the\r\ncondition of bearing of offspring who are the means of\r\nthe perpetuation of the community. The public interest\r\nis manifested in formalities which are necessary\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_52\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e\r\nto make a union legal and for its legal termination.\r\nConsequences, in a word, affect large numbers beyond\r\nthose immediately concerned in the transaction. It\r\nis often thought that in a socialistic state the formation\r\nand dissolution of marriages would cease to have\r\na public phase. It is possible. But it is also possible\r\nthat such a state would be even more alive than is the\r\ncommunity at present to the consequences of the union\r\nof man and woman not only upon children but upon\r\nits own well-being and stability. In that case certain\r\nregulations would be relaxed, but there might be imposed\r\nstringent rules as to health, economic capacity\r\nand psychologic compatibility as preconditions of\r\nwedlock.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eNo one can take into account all the consequences\r\nof the acts he performs. It is a matter of necessity\r\nfor him, as a rule, to limit his attention and foresight\r\nto matters which, as we say, are distinctively his own\r\nbusiness. Any one who looked too far abroad with\r\nregard to the outcome of what he is proposing to do\r\nwould, if there were no general rules in existence, soon\r\nbe lost in a hopelessly complicated muddle of considerations.\r\nThe man of most generous outlook has to\r\ndraw the line somewhere, and he is forced to draw it\r\nin whatever concerns those closely associated with himself.\r\nIn the absence of some objective regulation,\r\neffects upon them are all he can be sure of in any\r\nreasonable degree. Much of what is called selfishness is\r\nbut the outcome of limitation of observation and\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_53\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e\r\nimagination. Hence when consequences concern a large\r\nnumber, a number so mediately involved that a person\r\ncannot readily prefigure how they are to be affected,\r\nthat number is constituted a public which intervenes.\r\nIt is not merely that the combined observations of a\r\nnumber cover more ground than those of a single\r\nperson. It is rather that the public itself, being unable\r\nto forecast and estimate all consequences, establishes\r\ncertain dikes and channels so that actions are confined\r\nwithin prescribed limits, and insofar have moderately\r\npredictable consequences.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe regulations and laws of the state are therefore\r\nmisconceived when they are viewed as commands. The\r\n“command” theory of common and statute law is in\r\nreality a dialectical consequence of the theories, previously\r\ncriticized, which define the state in terms of an\r\nantecedent causation, specifically of that theory which\r\ntakes “will” to be the causal force which generates the\r\nstate. If a will is the origin of the state, then state-action\r\nexpresses itself in injunctions and prohibitions\r\nimposed by its will upon the wills of subjects. Sooner\r\nor later, however, the question arises as to the justification\r\nof the will which issues commands. Why should\r\nthe will of the rulers have more authority than that of\r\nothers? Why should the latter submit? The logical\r\nconclusion is that the ground of obedience lies ultimately\r\nin superior force. But this conclusion is an\r\nobvious invitation to trial of forces to see where superior\r\nforce lies. In fact the idea of authority is abolished,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_54\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e\r\nand that of force substituted. The next dialectical\r\nconclusion is that the will in question is something\r\nover and above any private will or any collection of\r\nsuch wills: is some overruling “general will.” This\r\nconclusion was drawn by Rousseau, and under the influence\r\nof German metaphysics was erected into a\r\ndogma of a mystic and transcendent absolute will,\r\nwhich in turn was not another name for force only\r\nbecause it was identified with absolute reason. The\r\nalternative to one or other of these conclusions is surrender\r\nof the causal authorship theory and the adoption\r\nof that of widely distributed consequences, which,\r\nwhen they are perceived, create a common interest and\r\nthe need of special agencies to care for it.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eRules of law are in fact the institution of conditions\r\nunder which persons make their arrangements with one\r\nanother. They are structures which canalize action;\r\nthey are active forces only as are banks which confine\r\nthe flow of a stream, and are commands only in the\r\nsense in which the banks command the current. If individuals\r\nhad no stated conditions under which they\r\ncome to agreement with one another, any agreement\r\nwould either terminate in a twilight zone of vagueness\r\nor would have to cover such an enormous amount of\r\ndetail as to be unwieldy and unworkable. Each agreement,\r\nmoreover, might vary so from every other that\r\nnothing could be inferred from one arrangement as to\r\nthe probable consequences of any other. Legal rules\r\nstate certain conditions which when met make an agreement\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_55\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e\r\na contract. The terms of the agreement are\r\nthereby canalized within manageable limits, and it is\r\npossible to generalize and predict from one to another.\r\nOnly the exigencies of a theory lead one to hold that\r\nthere is a command that an agreement be made in such\r\nand such a form.\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_2\" href=\"#Footnote_2\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e2\u003c/a\u003e What happens is that certain conditions\r\nare set such that \u003cem\u003eif\u003c/em\u003e a person conform to them,\r\nhe can count on certain consequences, while if he fails\r\nto do so he cannot forecast consequences. He takes a\r\nchance and runs the risk of having the whole transaction\r\ninvalidated to his loss. There is no reason to interpret\r\neven the “prohibitions” of criminal law in any\r\nother way. Conditions are stated in reference to consequences\r\nwhich may be incurred if they are infringed\r\nor transgressed. We can similarly state the undesirable\r\nresults which will happen if a stream breaks\r\nthrough its banks; if the stream were capable of foreseeing\r\nthese consequences and directing its behavior by\r\nthe foresight, we might metaphorically construe the\r\nbanks as issuing a prohibition.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis account explains both the large arbitrary and\r\ncontingent element in laws and their plausible identification\r\nwith reason, dissimilar as are the two considerations.\r\nThere are many transactions in which the thing\r\nof chief importance is that consequences be determinate\r\nin \u003cem\u003esome\u003c/em\u003e fashion rather than that they be determined\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_56\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e\r\nby some inherent principle to be just such\r\nand such. In other words, within limits it is\r\nindifferent what results are fixed by the conditions\r\nsettled upon; what is important is that the consequences\r\nbe certain enough to be predictable. The rule\r\nof the road is typical of a large number of rules. So\r\nis the fixing of sunset or of a specified hour as the\r\nexact time when the felonious entering of the premises\r\nof another takes on a more serious quality. On the\r\nother hand, rules of law are reasonable so that “reason”\r\nis appealed to by some as their fount and origin\r\non the ground pointed out by Hume.\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_3\" href=\"#Footnote_3\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e3\u003c/a\u003e Men are naturally\r\nshortsighted, and the shortsightedness is increased\r\nand perverted by the influence of appetite and\r\npassion. “The law” formulates remote and long-run\r\nconsequences. It then operates as a condensed available\r\ncheck on the naturally overweening influence of\r\nimmediate desire and interest over decision. It is a\r\nmeans of doing for a person what otherwise only his\r\nown foresight, if thoroughly reasonable, could do. For\r\na rule of law, although it may be laid down because\r\nof a special act as its occasion, is formulated in view\r\nof an indefinite variety of other possible acts. It is\r\nnecessarily a generalization; for it is generic as to the\r\npredictable consequences of a \u003cem\u003eclass\u003c/em\u003e of facts. If the\r\nincidents of a particular occasion exercise undue influence\r\nupon the content of a rule of law, it will soon be\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_57\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e\r\noverruled, either explicitly or by neglect. Upon this\r\ntheory, the law as “embodied reason” means a formulated\r\ngeneralization of means and procedures in behavior\r\nwhich are adapted to secure what is wanted.\r\nReason expresses a function, not a causal origin. Law\r\nis reasonable as a man is sensible who selects and arranges\r\nconditions adapted to produce the ends he regards\r\nas desirable. A recent writer, who regards “reason”\r\nas that which generates laws, says, “A debt does\r\nnot in reason cease to be a debt because time has\r\npassed, but the law sets up a limitation. A trespass\r\ndoes not cease in reason to be a trespass because it is\r\nindefinitely repeated, yet the law shows a tendency to\r\nadmit an unresisted trespass in time to the status of\r\nright. Time, distance and chance are indifferent to\r\npure reason; but they play their part in the legal\r\norder.”\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_4\" href=\"#Footnote_4\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e4\u003c/a\u003e But if reasonableness is a matter of adaptation\r\nof means to consequences, time and distance are\r\nthings to be given great weight; for they effect both\r\nconsequences and the ability to foresee them and\r\nto act upon them. Indeed, we might select statutes\r\nof limitation as excellent examples of the kind of rationality\r\nthe law contains. Only if reason is looked\r\nupon as “pure,” that is as a matter of formal logic,\r\ndo the instances cited manifest limitation of reason.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eA third mark of the public organized as a state, a\r\nmark which also provides a test of our hypothesis, is\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_58\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthat it is concerned with modes of behavior which are\r\nold and hence well established, engrained. Invention\r\nis a peculiarly personal act, even when a number of\r\npersons combine to make something new. A novel idea\r\nis the kind of thing that has to occur to somebody in\r\nthe singular sense. A new project is something to be\r\nundertaken and set agoing by private initiative. The\r\nnewer an idea or plan, the more it deviates from what\r\nis already recognized and established in practice. By\r\nthe nature of the case an innovation is a departure\r\nfrom the customary. Hence the resistance it is likely\r\nto encounter. We, to be sure, live in an era of discoveries\r\nand inventions. Speaking generically, innovation\r\nitself has become a custom. Imagination is wonted\r\nto it; it is expected. When novelties take the form of\r\nmechanical appliances, we incline to welcome them. But\r\nthis is far from always having been the case. The\r\nrule has been to look with suspicion and greet with\r\nhostility the appearance of anything new, even a tool\r\nor utensil. For an innovation \u003cem\u003eis\u003c/em\u003e a departure, and one\r\nwhich brings in its train some incalculable disturbance\r\nof the behavior to which we have grown used and which\r\nseems “natural.” As a recent writer has clearly shown,\r\ninventions have made their way insidiously; and because\r\nof some immediate convenience. If their effects,\r\ntheir long-run consequences, in altering habits of behavior\r\nhad been foreseen, it is safe to say that most of\r\nthem would have been destroyed as wicked, just as\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_59\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e\r\nmany of them were retarded in adoption because they\r\nwere felt to be sacrilegious.\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_5\" href=\"#Footnote_5\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e In any case, we cannot\r\nthink of their invention being the work of the state.\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_6\" href=\"#Footnote_6\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e6\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe organized community is still hesitant with reference\r\nto new ideas of a non-technical and non-technological\r\nnature. They are felt to be disturbing to social\r\nbehavior; and rightly so, as far as old and established\r\nbehavior is concerned. Most persons object to having\r\ntheir habits unsettled, their habits of belief no less than\r\nhabits of overt action. A new idea \u003cem\u003eis\u003c/em\u003e an unsettling of\r\nreceived beliefs; otherwise, it would not be a new idea.\r\nThis is only to say that the production of new ideas\r\nis peculiarly a private performance. About the most\r\nwe can ask of the state, judging from states which have\r\nso far existed, is that it put up with their production\r\nby private individuals without undue meddling. A\r\nstate which will organize to manufacture and disseminate\r\nnew ideas and new ways of thinking may come into\r\nexistence some time, but such a state is a matter of\r\nfaith, not sight. When it comes it will arrive because\r\nthe beneficial consequences of new ideas have become\r\nan article of common faith and repute. It may, indeed,\r\nbe said that even now the state provides those conditions\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_60\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof security which are necessary if private persons\r\nare to engage effectually in discovery and invention.\r\nBut this service is a by-product; it is foreign to the\r\ngrounds on which the conditions in question are maintained\r\nby the public. And it must be offset by noting\r\nthe extent to which the state of affairs upon which the\r\npublic heart is most set is unfavorable to thinking in\r\nother than technical lines. In any case, it is absurd\r\nto expect the public, because it is called in no matter\r\nhow eulogistic a sense the state, to rise above the intellectual\r\nlevel of its average constituents.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhen, however, a mode of behavior has become old\r\nand familiar, and when an instrumentality has come\r\ninto use as a matter of course, provided it is a prerequisite\r\nof other customary pursuits, it tends to\r\ncome within the scope of the state. An individual may\r\nmake his own track in a forest; but highways are\r\nusually public concerns. Without roads which one is\r\nfree to use at will, men might almost as well be castaways\r\non a desert island. Means of transit and communication\r\naffect not only those who utilize them but\r\nall who are dependent in any way upon what is transported,\r\nwhether as producers or consumers. The increase\r\nof easy and rapid intercommunication means\r\nthat production takes place more and more for\r\ndistant markets and it puts a premium upon mass-production.\r\nThus it becomes a disputed question whether\r\nrailroads as well as highways should not be administered\r\nby public officials, and in any case some measure\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_61\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof official regulation is instituted, as they become\r\nsettled bases of social life.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe tendency to put what is old and established in\r\nuniform lines under the regulation of the state has\r\npsychological support. Habits economize intellectual\r\nas well as muscular energy. They relieve the mind\r\nfrom thought of means, thus freeing thought to deal\r\nwith new conditions and purposes. Moreover, interference\r\nwith a well-established habit is followed by uneasiness\r\nand antipathy. The efficiency of liberation\r\nfrom attention to whatever is regularly recurrent is reënforced\r\nby an emotional tendency to get rid of bother.\r\nHence there is a general disposition to turn over activities\r\nwhich have become highly standardized and uniform to\r\nrepresentatives of the public. It is possible\r\nthat the time will come when not only railways will have\r\nbecome routine in their operation and management, but\r\nalso existing modes of machine production, so that business\r\nmen instead of opposing public ownership will\r\nclamor for it in order that they may devote their energies\r\nto affairs which involve more novelty, variation and\r\nopportunities for risk and gain. They might conceivably,\r\neven under a régime of continued private property\r\nin general, no more wish to be bothered with routinized\r\noperations than they would want to take over the\r\ncare of public streets. Even now the question of the\r\npublic’s taking charge of the machinery of the manufacture\r\nof goods is less a matter of wholesale “individualism”\r\nversus “socialism” than it is of the ratio of the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_62\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e\r\nexperimental and novel in their management to the\r\nhabitual and matter-of-course; of that which is taken\r\nfor granted as a condition of other things to that\r\nwhich is significant in its own operation.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eA fourth mark of the public is indicated by the idea\r\nthat children and other dependents (such as the insane,\r\nthe permanently helpless) are peculiarly its wards.\r\nWhen the parties involved in any transaction are unequal\r\nin status, the relationship is likely to be one-sided,\r\nand the interests of one party to suffer. If the\r\nconsequences appear serious, especially if they seem to\r\nbe irretrievable, the public brings to bear a weight that\r\nwill equalize conditions. Legislatures are more ready to\r\nregulate the hours of labor of children than of adults,\r\nof women than of men. In general, labor legislation is\r\njustified against the charge that it violates liberty of\r\ncontract on the ground that the economic resources of\r\nthe parties to the arrangement are so disparate that\r\nthe conditions of a genuine contract are absent; action\r\nby the state is introduced to form a level on which\r\nbargaining takes place. Labor unions often object,\r\nhowever, to such “paternalistic” legislation on the\r\nground that voluntary combinations to ensure collective\r\nbargaining is better for those concerned than action\r\ntaken without the active participation of laborers. The\r\ngeneral objection that paternalism tends to keep those\r\naffected by it permanently in the status of children,\r\nwithout an impetus to help themselves, rests on the\r\nsame basis. The difference here is nevertheless not as\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_63\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e\r\nto the principle that inequality of status may call for\r\npublic intervention, but as to the best means of securing\r\nand maintaining equality.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere has been a steady tendency for the education\r\nof children to be regarded as properly a state charge\r\nin spite of the fact that children are primarily the care\r\nof a family. But the period in which education is possible\r\nto an effective degree is that of childhood; if this\r\ntime is not taken advantage of the consequences are\r\nirreparable. The neglect can rarely be made up later.\r\nIn the degree, then, that a certain measure of instruction\r\nand training is deemed to have significant consequences\r\nfor the social body, rules are laid down affecting\r\nthe action of parents in relation to their children,\r\nand those who are not parents are taxed—Herbert\r\nSpencer to the contrary notwithstanding—to maintain\r\nschools. Again, the consequences of neglect of safeguards\r\nin industries involving machines which are dangerous\r\nand those presenting unhygienic conditions, are\r\nso serious and irretrievable that the modern public has\r\nintervened to maintain conditions conducive to safety\r\nand health. Movements which aim at insurance against\r\nillness and old-age under governmental auspices illustrate\r\nthe same principle. While public regulation of\r\na minimum wage is still a disputed matter, the argument\r\nin behalf of it appeals to the criterion stated.\r\nThe argument in effect is that a living wage is a matter\r\nof such serious indirect consequences to society that\r\nit cannot be safely left to the parties directly concerned,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_64\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e\r\nowing to the fact that immediate need may\r\nincapacitate one party to the transaction from effective\r\nbargaining.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn what has been said there is no attempt to\r\nlay down criteria to be applied in a predetermined\r\nway to ensure just such and such results. We are\r\nnot concerned to predict the special forms which state\r\naction will take in the future. We have simply been\r\nengaged in pointing out the marks by which public\r\naction as distinct from private is characterized.\r\nTransactions between singular persons and groups\r\nbring a public into being when their indirect consequences—their\r\neffects beyond those immediately engaged\r\nin them—are of importance. Vagueness is not\r\neliminated from the idea of importance. But at least\r\nwe have pointed out some of the factors which go to\r\nmake up importance: namely, the far-reaching character\r\nof consequences, whether in space or time; their\r\nsettled, uniform and recurrent nature, and their irreparableness.\r\nEach one of these matters involves questions\r\nof degree. There is no sharp and clear line which\r\ndraws itself, pointing out beyond peradventure, like\r\nthe line left by a receding high tide, just where a public\r\ncomes into existence which has interests so significant\r\nthat they must be looked after and administered by\r\nspecial agencies, or governmental officers. Hence there\r\nis often room for dispute. The line of demarcation\r\nbetween actions left to private initiative and management\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_65\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e\r\nand those regulated by the state has to be discovered\r\nexperimentally.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAs we shall see later, there are assignable reasons\r\nwhy it will be drawn very differently at different times\r\nand places. The very fact that the public depends\r\nupon consequences of acts and the perception of consequences,\r\nwhile its organization into a state depends\r\nupon the ability to invent and employ special instrumentalities,\r\nshows how and why publics and political\r\ninstitutions differ widely from epoch to epoch and\r\nfrom place to place. To suppose that an \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003ea priori\u003c/i\u003e\r\nconception of the intrinsic nature and limits of the individual\r\non one side and the state on the other will\r\nyield good results once for all is absurd. If, however,\r\nthe state has a definite nature, as it should have if it\r\nwere formed by fixed causal agencies, or if individuals\r\nhave a nature fixed once for all apart from conditions\r\nof association, a final and wholesale partitioning of the\r\nrealms of personal and state activity is the logical\r\nconclusion. The failure of such a theory to reach\r\npractical solutions is, therefore, a further confirmation\r\nof the theory which emphasizes the consequences of activity\r\nas the essential affair.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, we shall make explicit what has been\r\nimplied regarding the relation to one another of public,\r\ngovernment and state.\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_7\" href=\"#Footnote_7\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e7\u003c/a\u003e There have been two extreme\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_66\"\u003e66\u003c/span\u003e\r\nviews about this point. On one hand, the state has\r\nbeen identified with government. On the other hand,\r\nthe state, having a necessary existence of its own, \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003eper\r\nse\u003c/i\u003e, is said then to proceed to form and employ certain\r\nagencies forming government, much as a man hires\r\nservants and assigns them duties. The latter view is\r\nappropriate when the causal agency theory is relied\r\nupon. Some force, whether a general will or the singular\r\nwills of assembled individuals, calls the state into\r\nbeing. Then the latter as a secondary operation\r\nchooses certain persons through whom to act. Such\r\na theory helps those who entertain it to retain the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_67\"\u003e67\u003c/span\u003e\r\nidea of the inherent sanctity of the state. Concrete\r\npolitical evils such as history exhibits in abundance\r\ncan be laid at the door of fallible and corrupt governments,\r\nwhile the state keeps its honor unbesmirched.\r\nThe identification of the state with government has the\r\nadvantage of keeping the mind’s eye upon concrete and\r\nobservable facts; but it involves an unaccountable separation\r\nbetween rulers and people. If a government\r\nexists by itself and on its own account, why should\r\nthere be government? Why should there persist the\r\nhabits of loyalty and obedience which permit it to\r\nrule?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe hypothesis which has been advanced frees\r\nus from the perplexities which cluster about both of\r\nthese two notions. The lasting, extensive and serious\r\nconsequences of associated activity bring into existence\r\na public. In itself it is unorganized and formless. By\r\nmeans of officials and their special powers it becomes\r\na state. A public articulated and operating through\r\nrepresentative officers is the state; there is no state\r\nwithout a government, but also there is none without\r\nthe public. The officers are still singular beings, but\r\nthey exercise new and special powers. These may be\r\nturned to their private account. Then government is\r\ncorrupt and arbitrary. Quite apart from deliberate\r\ngraft, from using unusual powers for private glorification\r\nand profit, density of mind and pomposity of behavior,\r\nadherence to class-interest and its prejudices,\r\nare strengthened by position. “Power is poison” was\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_68\"\u003e68\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe remark of one of the best, shrewdest and most experienced\r\nobservers of Washington politicians. On the\r\nother hand, occupancy of office may enlarge a man’s\r\nviews and stimulate his social interest so that he\r\nexhibits as a statesman traits foreign to his private\r\nlife.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut since the public forms a state only by and\r\nthrough officials and their acts, and since holding official\r\nposition does not work a miracle of transubstantiation,\r\nthere is nothing perplexing nor even discouraging\r\nin the spectacle of the stupidities and errors of\r\npolitical behavior. The facts which give rise to the\r\nspectacle should, however, protect us from the illusion\r\nof expecting extraordinary change to follow from a\r\nmere change in political agencies and methods. Such\r\na change sometimes occurs, but when it does, it is\r\nbecause the social conditions, in generating a new public,\r\nhave prepared the way for it; the state sets a\r\nformal seal upon forces already in operation by giving\r\nthem a defined channel through which to act. Conceptions\r\nof “The State” as something \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003eper se\u003c/i\u003e, something\r\nintrinsically manifesting a general will and reason,\r\nlend themselves to illusions. They make such a sharp\r\ndistinction between \u003cem\u003ethe\u003c/em\u003e state and \u003cem\u003ea\u003c/em\u003e government that,\r\nfrom the standpoint of the theories, a government may\r\nbe corrupt and injurious and yet The State by the\r\nsame idea retain its inherent dignity and nobility.\r\nOfficials may be mean, obstinate, proud and stupid and\r\nyet the nature of the state which they serve remain essentially\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_69\"\u003e69\u003c/span\u003e\r\nunimpaired. Since, however, a public is organized\r\ninto a state through its government, the state\r\nis as its officials are. Only through constant watchfulness\r\nand criticism of public officials by citizens can\r\na state be maintained in integrity and usefulness.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe discussion also returns with some added illumination\r\nto the problem of the relation of state and\r\nsociety. The problem of the relation of individuals to\r\nassociations—sometimes posed as the relation of \u003cem\u003ethe\u003c/em\u003e\r\nindividual to society—is a meaningless one. We might\r\nas well make a problem out of the relation of the\r\nletters of an alphabet to the alphabet. An alphabet is\r\nletters, and “society” is individuals in their connections\r\nwith one another. The mode of combination of letters\r\nwith one another is obviously a matter of importance;\r\nletters form words and sentences when combined, and\r\nhave no point nor sense except in some combination. I\r\nwould not say that the latter statement applies literally\r\nto individuals, but it cannot be gainsaid that singular\r\nhuman beings exist and behave in constant and varied\r\nassociation with one another. These modes of conjoint\r\naction and their consequences profoundly affect not\r\nonly the outer habits of singular persons, but their\r\ndispositions in emotion, desire, planning and valuing.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e“Society,” however, is either an abstract or a collective\r\nnoun. In the concrete, there are societies, associations,\r\ngroups of an immense number of kinds, having\r\ndifferent ties and instituting different interests. They\r\nmay be gangs, criminal bands; clubs for sport, sociability\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_70\"\u003e70\u003c/span\u003e\r\nand eating; scientific and professional organizations;\r\npolitical parties and unions within them; families;\r\nreligious denominations, business partnerships and\r\ncorporations; and so on in an endless list. The associations\r\nmay be local, nationwide and trans-national.\r\nSince there is no one \u003cem\u003ething\u003c/em\u003e which may be called society,\r\nexcept their indefinite overlapping, there is no unqualified\r\neulogistic connotation adhering to the term “society.”\r\nSome societies are in the main to be approved;\r\nsome to be condemned, on account of their consequences\r\nupon the character and conduct of those engaged in\r\nthem and because of their remoter consequences upon\r\nothers. All of them, like all things human, are mixed\r\nin quality; “society” is something to be approached\r\nand judged critically and discriminatingly. “Socialization”\r\nof some sort—that is, the reflex modification of\r\nwants, beliefs and work because of share in a united\r\naction—is inevitable. But it is as marked in the formation\r\nof frivolous, dissipated, fanatical, narrow-minded\r\nand criminal persons as in that of competent\r\ninquirers, learned scholars, creative artists and good\r\nneighbors.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eConfining our notice to the results which are desirable,\r\nit appears that there is no reason for assigning\r\nall the values which are generated and maintained by\r\nmeans of human associations to the work of states. Yet\r\nthe same unbridled generalizing and fixating tendency\r\nof the mind which leads to a monistic fixation of society\r\nhas extended beyond the hypostatizing of “society”\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_71\"\u003e71\u003c/span\u003e\r\nand produced a magnified idealization of The State.\r\nAll values which result from any kind of association\r\nare habitually imputed by one school of social philosophers\r\nto the state. Naturally the result is to place\r\nthe state beyond criticism. Revolt against the state\r\nis then thought to be the one unforgivable social sin.\r\nSometimes the deification proceeds from a special need\r\nof the time, as in the cases of Spinoza and Hegel.\r\nSometimes it springs from a prior belief in universal\r\nwill and reason and a consequent need of finding some\r\nempirical phenomena which may be identified with the\r\nexternalization of this absolute spirit. Then this is\r\nemployed, by circular logic, as evidence for the existence\r\nof such a spirit. The net import of our discussion\r\nis that a state is a distinctive and secondary form of\r\nassociation, having a specifiable work to do and specified\r\norgans of operation.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is quite true that most states, after they have\r\nbeen brought into being, react upon the primary groupings.\r\nWhen a state is a good state, when the officers\r\nof the public genuinely serve the public interests, this\r\nreflex effect is of great importance. It renders the\r\ndesirable associations solider and more coherent; indirectly\r\nit clarifies their aims and purges their activities.\r\nIt places a discount upon injurious groupings\r\nand renders their tenure of life precarious. In performing\r\nthese services, it gives the individual members\r\nof valued associations greater liberty and security: it\r\nrelieves them of hampering conditions which if they had\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_72\"\u003e72\u003c/span\u003e\r\nto cope with personally would absorb their energies in\r\nmere negative struggle against evils. It enables individual\r\nmembers to count with reasonable certainty\r\nupon what others will do, and thus facilitates mutually\r\nhelpful coöperations. It creates respect for others and\r\nfor one’s self. A measure of the goodness of a state is\r\nthe degree in which it relieves individuals from the\r\nwaste of negative struggle and needless conflict and\r\nconfers upon him positive assurance and reënforcement\r\nin what he undertakes. This is a great service, and\r\nthere is no call to be niggardly in acknowledging the\r\ntransformations of group and personal action which\r\nstates have historically effected.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut this recognition cannot be legitimately converted\r\ninto the monopolistic absorption of all associations\r\ninto The State, nor of all social values into\r\npolitical value. The all-inclusive nature of the state\r\nsignifies only that officers of the public (including, of\r\ncourse, law-makers) may act so as to fix conditions\r\nunder which \u003cem\u003eany\u003c/em\u003e form of association operates; its comprehensive\r\ncharacter refers only to the impact of its\r\nbehavior. A war like an earthquake may “include” in\r\nits consequences all elements in a given territory, but\r\nthe inclusion is by way of effects, not by inherent nature\r\nor right. A beneficent law, like a condition of\r\ngeneral economic prosperity, may favorably affect all\r\ninterests in a particular region, but it cannot be called\r\na whole of which the elements influenced are parts.\r\nNor can the liberating and confirming results of public\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_73\"\u003e73\u003c/span\u003e\r\naction be construed to yield a wholesale idealization\r\nof states in contrast with other associations. For\r\nstate activity is often injurious to the latter. One of\r\nthe chief occupations of states has been the waging of\r\nwar and the suppression of dissentient minorities.\r\nMoreover, their action, even when benign, presupposes\r\nvalues due to non-political forms of living together\r\nwhich are but extended and reënforced by the public\r\nthrough its agents.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe hypothesis which we have supported has obvious\r\npoints of contact with what is known as the pluralistic\r\nconception of the state. It presents also a marked\r\npoint of difference. Our doctrine of plural forms is a\r\nstatement of a fact: that there exist a plurality of\r\nsocial groupings, good, bad and indifferent. It is not\r\na doctrine which prescribes inherent limits to state\r\naction. It does not intimate that the function of the\r\nstate is limited to settling conflicts among other groups,\r\nas if each one of them had a fixed scope of action of\r\nits own. Were that true, the state would be only an\r\numpire to avert and remedy trespasses of one group\r\nupon another. Our hypothesis is neutral as to any\r\ngeneral, sweeping implications as to how far state activity\r\nmay extend. It does not indicate any particular\r\npolity of public action. At times, the consequences of\r\nthe conjoint behavior of some persons may be such that\r\na large public interest is generated which can be\r\nfulfilled only by laying down conditions which involve\r\na large measure of reconstruction within that group.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_74\"\u003e74\u003c/span\u003e\r\nThere is no more an inherent sanctity in a church,\r\ntrade-union, business corporation, or family institution\r\nthan there is in the state. Their value is also to\r\nbe measured by their consequences. The consequences\r\nvary with concrete conditions; hence at one time and\r\nplace a large measure of state activity may be indicated\r\nand at another time a policy of quiescence and\r\n\u003ci lang=\"fr\"\u003elaissez-faire\u003c/i\u003e. Just as publics and states vary with\r\nconditions of time and place, so do the concrete functions\r\nwhich should be carried on by states. There is\r\nno antecedent universal proposition which can be laid\r\ndown because of which the functions of a state should be\r\nlimited or should be expanded. Their scope is something\r\nto be critically and experimentally determined.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap x-ebookmaker-drop\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_75\"\u003e75\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch2 class=\"nobreak\" id=\"toclink_75\"\u003eCHAPTER III\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cspan class=\"subhead\"\u003eTHE DEMOCRATIC STATE\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eSingular persons are the foci of action, mental and\r\nmoral, as well as overt. They are subject to all kinds\r\nof social influences which determine \u003cem\u003ewhat\u003c/em\u003e they can\r\nthink of, plan and choose. The conflicting streams of\r\nsocial influence come to a single and conclusive issue\r\nonly in personal consciousness and deed. When a public\r\nis generated, the same law holds. It arrives at decisions,\r\nmakes terms and executes resolves only through\r\nthe medium of individuals. They are officers; they\r\nrepresent a Public, but the Public acts only through\r\nthem. We say in a country like our own that legislators\r\nand executives are elected by the public. The\r\nphrase might appear to indicate that the Public acts.\r\nBut, after all, individual men and women exercise the\r\nfranchise; the public is here a collective name for a\r\nmultitude of persons each voting as an anonymous\r\nunit. As a citizen-voter each one of these persons is,\r\nhowever, an officer of the public. He expresses his\r\nwill as a representative of the public interest as much\r\nso as does a senator or sheriff. His vote may express\r\nhis hope to profit in private purse by the election of\r\nsome man or the ratification of some proposed law. He\r\nmay fail, in other words, in effort to represent the interest\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_76\"\u003e76\u003c/span\u003e\r\nentrusted to him. But in this respect he does\r\nnot differ from those explicitly designated public officials\r\nwho have also been known to betray the interest\r\ncommitted to them instead of faithfully representing it.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn other words, every officer of the public, whether\r\nhe represents it as a voter or as a stated official, has a\r\ndual capacity. From this fact the most serious problem\r\nof government arises. We commonly speak of some\r\ngovernments as representative in contrast with others\r\nwhich are not. By our hypothesis all governments are\r\nrepresentative in that they purport to stand for the\r\ninterests which a public has in the behavior of individuals\r\nand groups. There is, however, no contradiction\r\nhere. Those concerned in government are still human\r\nbeings. They retain their share of the ordinary traits\r\nof human nature. They still have private interests to\r\nserve and interests of special groups, those of the\r\nfamily, clique or class to which they belong. Rarely\r\ncan a person sink himself in his political function; the\r\nbest which most men attain to is the domination by the\r\npublic weal of their other desires. What is meant by\r\n“representative” government is that the public is definitely\r\norganized with the intent to secure this dominance.\r\nThe dual capacity of every officer of the public\r\nleads to conflict in individuals between their genuinely\r\npolitical aims and acts and those which they possess\r\nin their non-political rôles. When the public adopts\r\nspecial measures to see to it that the conflict is minimized\r\nand that the representative function overrides\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_77\"\u003e77\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe private one, political institutions are termed representative.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt may be said that not until recently have publics\r\nbeen conscious that they were publics, so that it is\r\nabsurd to speak of their organizing themselves to protect\r\nand secure their interests. Hence states are a\r\nrecent development. The facts are, indeed, fatally\r\nagainst attribution of any long history to states provided\r\nwe use a hard and fast conceptual definition of\r\nstates. But our definition is founded on the exercise\r\nof a function, not on any inherent essence or structural\r\nnature. Hence it is more or less a verbal matter just\r\nwhat countries and peoples are called states. What is\r\nof importance is that the facts which significantly differentiate\r\nvarious forms from one another be recognized.\r\nThe objection just urged points to a fact of\r\ngreat significance, whether the word “state” be used or\r\nnot. It indicates that for long stretches of time the\r\npublic rôle of rulers has been incidental to other ends\r\nfor which they have used their powers. There has been\r\na machinery of government, but it has been employed\r\nfor purposes which in the strict sense are non-political,\r\nthe deliberate advancement of dynastic interests. Thus\r\nwe come upon the primary problem of the public: to\r\nachieve such recognition of itself as will give it weight\r\nin the selection of official representatives and in the\r\ndefinition of their responsibilities and rights. Consideration\r\nof this problem leads us, as we shall see, into\r\nthe discussion of the democratic state.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_78\"\u003e78\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eTaking history as a whole, the selection of rulers\r\nand equipment of them with powers has been a matter\r\nof political accident. Persons have been selected as\r\njudges, executives and administrators for reasons independent\r\nof capacity to serve public interests. Some\r\nof the Greek states of antiquity and the examination\r\nsystem of China stand out for the very reason that\r\nthey are exceptions to this statement. History shows\r\nthat, in the main, persons have ruled because of some\r\nprerogative and conspicuous place which was independent\r\nof their definitively public rôle. If we introduce the\r\nidea of the public at all, we are bound to say that it\r\nwas assumed without question that certain persons\r\nwere fit to be rulers because of traits independent of\r\npolitical considerations. Thus in many societies the\r\nmale elders exercised such rule as obtained in virtue of\r\nthe mere fact that they were old men. Gerontocracy\r\nis a familiar and widespread fact. Doubtless there\r\nwas a presumption that age was a sign of knowledge\r\nof group traditions and of matured experience, but it\r\ncan hardly be said that this presumption was consciously\r\nthe influential factor in giving old men a\r\nmonopoly of rule. Rather they had it \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003eipso facto\u003c/i\u003e, because\r\nthey had it. A principle of inertia, of least resistance\r\nand least action, operated. Those who were\r\nalready conspicuous in some respect, were it only for\r\nlong gray beards, had political powers conferred upon\r\nthem.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eSuccess in military achievement is an irrelevant factor\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_79\"\u003e79\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwhich has controlled the selection of men to rule.\r\nWhether or no “camps are the true mothers of cities,”\r\nwhether or no Herbert Spencer was right in declaring\r\nthat government originated in chieftainship for war\r\npurposes, there is no doubt that, in most communities,\r\nthe ability of a man to win battles has seemed to mark\r\nhim out as a predestined manager of the civil affairs\r\nof a community. There is no need to argue that the\r\ntwo positions demand different gifts, and that achievement\r\nin one is no proof of fitness for the other. The\r\nfact remains. Nor do we have to look at ancient states\r\nfor evidence of its effective operation. States nominally\r\ndemocratic show the same tendency to assume\r\nthat a winning general has some quasi-divine appointment\r\nto political office. Reason would teach that oftentimes\r\neven the politicians who are most successful\r\nin instigating the willingness of the civilian population\r\nto support a war are by that very fact incapacitated\r\nfor the offices of making a just and enduring peace.\r\nBut the treaty of Versailles is there to show how difficult\r\nit is to make a shift of personnel even when conditions\r\nradically alter so that there is need for men of a\r\nchanged outlook and interests. To those who have, it\r\nshall be given. It is human nature to think along the\r\neasiest lines, and this induces men when they want\r\nconspicuous leaders in the civil function to fasten upon\r\nthose who are already conspicuous, no matter what\r\nthe reason.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAside from old men and warriors, medicine men and\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_80\"\u003e80\u003c/span\u003e\r\npriests have had a ready-made, predestined vocation\r\nto rule. Where the community welfare is precarious\r\nand dependent upon the favor of supernatural beings,\r\nthose skilled in the arts by which the wrath and jealousy\r\nof the gods are averted and their favor procured,\r\nhave the marks of superior capacity to administer\r\nstates. Success in living to an old age, in battle and\r\nin occult arts, have, however, been most signalized in\r\nthe \u003cem\u003einitiation\u003c/em\u003e of political régimes. What has counted\r\nmost in the long run is the dynastic factor. \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003eBeati\r\npossidentes.\u003c/i\u003e The family from which a ruler has been\r\ntaken occupies in virtue of that fact a conspicuous\r\nposition and superior power. Preëminence in status is\r\nreadily taken for excellence. Divine favor \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003eex officio\u003c/i\u003e\r\nattends a family in which rule has been exercised for\r\nenough generations so that the memory of original exploits\r\nhas grown dim or become legendary. The emoluments,\r\npomp and power which go with rule are not\r\nthought to need justification. They not only embellish\r\nand dignify it, but are regarded as symbols of intrinsic\r\nworthiness to possess it. Custom consolidates what accident\r\nmay have originated; established power has a\r\nway of legitimizing itself. Alliances with other potent\r\nfamilies within and without the country, possession of\r\nlarge landed estates, a retinue of courtiers and access to\r\nrevenues of the state, with a multitude of other things\r\nirrelevant to the public interest, establish a dynastic\r\nposition at the same time that they divert the genuine\r\npolitical function to private ends.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_81\"\u003e81\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAn additional complication is introduced because the\r\nglory, wealth and power of rulers constitutes in itself\r\nan invitation to seize and exploit office. The causes\r\nwhich operate to induce men to strive for any shining\r\nobject operate with increased appeal in the case of\r\ngovernmental power. The centralization and scope of\r\nfunctions which are needed in order to serve the interests\r\nof the public become, in other words, seductions to\r\ndraw state officials into subserving private ends. All\r\nhistory shows how difficult it is for human beings to\r\nbear effectually in mind the objects for the nominal\r\nsake of which they are clothed with power and pomp;\r\nit shows the ease with which they employ their panoply\r\nto advance private and class interests. Were actual\r\ndishonesty the only, or even chief, foe, the problem\r\nwould be much simpler. The ease of routine, the difficulty\r\nof ascertaining public needs, the intensity of the\r\nglare which attends the seat of the mighty, desire for\r\nimmediate and visible results, play the larger part.\r\nOne often hears it said by socialists justly impatient\r\nwith the present economic régime that “industry should\r\nbe taken out of private hands.” One recognizes what\r\nthey intend: that it should cease to be regulated by desire\r\nfor private profit and should function for the benefit\r\nof producers and consumers, instead of being sidetracked\r\nto the advantage of financiers and stockholders.\r\nBut one wonders whether those who so readily\r\nutter this saying have asked themselves into whose\r\nhands industry is to pass? Into those of the public?\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_82\"\u003e82\u003c/span\u003e\r\nBut, alas, the public has no hands except those of\r\nindividual human beings. The essential problem is that\r\nof transforming the action of such hands so that it\r\nwill be animated by regard for social ends. There is\r\nno magic by which this result can be accomplished.\r\nThe same causes which have led men to utilize concentrated\r\npolitical power to serve private purposes will\r\ncontinue to act to induce men to employ concentrated\r\neconomic power in behalf of non-public aims. This\r\nfact does not imply the problem is insoluble. But it\r\nindicates where the problem resides, whatever guise it\r\nassumes. Since officers of the public have a dual make-up\r\nand capacity, what conditions and what technique\r\nare necessary in order that insight, loyalty and energy\r\nmay be enlisted on the side of the public and political\r\nrôle?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThese commonplace considerations have been adduced\r\nas a background for discussion of the problems\r\nand prospects of democratic government. Democracy\r\nis a word of many meanings. Some of them are of such\r\na broad social and moral import as to be irrelevant to\r\nour immediate theme. But one of the meanings is distinctly\r\npolitical, for it denotes a mode of government,\r\na specified practice in selecting officials and regulating\r\ntheir conduct as officials. This is not the most inspiring\r\nof the different meanings of democracy; it is comparatively\r\nspecial in character. But it contains about\r\nall that is relevant to \u003cem\u003epolitical\u003c/em\u003e democracy. Now the\r\ntheories and practices regarding the selection and behavior\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_83\"\u003e83\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof public officials which constitute political\r\ndemocracy have been worked out against the historical\r\nbackground just alluded to. They represent an effort\r\nin the first place to counteract the forces that have\r\nso largely determined the possession of rule by accidental\r\nand irrelevant factors, and in the second place\r\nan effort to counteract the tendency to employ political\r\npower to serve private instead of public ends. To\r\ndiscuss democratic government at large apart from\r\nits historic background is to miss its point and to\r\nthrow away all means for an intelligent criticism of it.\r\nIn taking the distinctively historical point of view we\r\ndo not derogate from the important and even superior\r\nclaims of democracy as an ethical and social ideal. We\r\nlimit the topic for discussion in such a way as to avoid\r\n“the great bad,” the mixing of things which need to\r\nbe kept distinct.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eViewed as a historical tendency exhibited in a chain\r\nof movements which have affected the forms of government\r\nover almost the entire globe during the last century\r\nand a half, democracy is a complex affair. There\r\nis a current legend to the effect that the movement\r\noriginated in a single clear-cut idea, and has proceeded\r\nby a single unbroken impetus to unfold itself to a\r\npredestined end, whether triumphantly glorious or\r\nfatally catastrophic. The myth is perhaps rarely held\r\nin so simple and unmixed a form. But something approaching\r\nit is found whenever men either praise or\r\ndamn democratic government absolutely, that is, without\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_84\"\u003e84\u003c/span\u003e\r\ncomparing it with alternative polities. Even the\r\nleast accidental, the most deliberately planned, political\r\nforms do not embody some absolute and unquestioned\r\ngood. They represent a choice, amid a complex of\r\ncontending forces, of that particular possibility which\r\nappears to promise the most good with the least attendant\r\nevil.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eSuch a statement, moreover, immensely oversimplifies.\r\nPolitical forms do not originate in a once for all\r\nway. The greatest change, once it is accomplished, is\r\nsimply the outcome of a vast series of adaptations and\r\nresponsive accommodations, each to its own particular\r\nsituation. Looking back, it is possible to make out a\r\ntrend of more or less steady change in a single direction.\r\nBut it is, we repeat, mere mythology to attribute\r\nsuch unity of result as exists (which is always easy\r\nto exaggerate) to single force or principle. Political\r\ndemocracy has emerged as a kind of net consequence\r\nof a vast multitude of responsive adjustments to a vast\r\nnumber of situations, no two of which were alike, but\r\nwhich tended to converge to a common outcome. The\r\ndemocratic convergence, moreover, was not the result\r\nof distinctively political forces and agencies. Much\r\nless is democracy the product \u003cem\u003eof\u003c/em\u003e democracy, of some\r\ninherent nisus, or immanent idea. The temperate generalization\r\nto the effect that the unity of the democratic\r\nmovement is found in effort to remedy evils experienced\r\nin consequence of prior political institutions\r\nrealizes that it proceeded step by step, and that each\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_85\"\u003e85\u003c/span\u003e\r\nstep was taken without foreknowledge of any ultimate\r\nresult, and, for the most part, under the immediate influence\r\nof a number of differing impulses and slogans.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is even more important to realize that the conditions\r\nout of which the efforts at remedy grew and which\r\nit made possible for them to succeed were primarily\r\nnon-political in nature. For the evils were of long\r\nstanding, and any account of the movement must raise\r\ntwo questions: Why were efforts at improvement not\r\nmade earlier, and, when they were made, why did they\r\ntake just the form which they did take? The answers\r\nto both questions will be found in distinctive religious,\r\nscientific and economic changes which finally took effect\r\nin the political field, being themselves primarily non-political\r\nand innocent of democratic intent. Large\r\nquestions and far-ranging ideas and ideals arose during\r\nthe course of the movement. But theories of the nature\r\nof the individual and his rights, of freedom and authority,\r\nprogress and order, liberty and law, of the common\r\ngood and a general will, of democracy itself, did not\r\nproduce the movement. They reflected it in thought;\r\nafter they emerged, they entered into subsequent strivings\r\nand had practical effect.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe have insisted that the development of political\r\ndemocracy represents the convergence of a great number\r\nof social movements, no one of which owed either\r\nits origin or its impetus to inspiration of democratic\r\nideals or to planning for the eventual outcome. This\r\nfact makes irrelevant both pæans and condemnations\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_86\"\u003e86\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbased upon conceptual interpretations of democracy,\r\nwhich, whether true or false, good or bad, are reflections\r\nof facts in thought, not their causal authors. In any\r\ncase, the complexity of the historic events which have\r\noperated is such as to preclude any thought of rehearsing\r\nthem in these pages, even if I had a knowledge and\r\ncompetency which are lacking. Two general and obvious\r\nconsiderations need, however, to be mentioned.\r\nBorn in revolt against established forms of government\r\nand the state, the events which finally culminated\r\nin democratic political forms were deeply tinged by\r\nfear of government, and were actuated by a desire to\r\nreduce it to a minimum so as to limit the evil it could do.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eSince established political forms were tied up with\r\nother institutions, especially ecclesiastical, and with a\r\nsolid body of tradition and inherited belief, the revolt\r\nalso extended to the latter. Thus it happened that the\r\nintellectual terms in which the movement expressed itself\r\nhad a negative import even when they seemed to\r\nbe positive. Freedom presented itself as an end in\r\nitself, though it signified in fact liberation from oppression\r\nand tradition. Since it was necessary, upon\r\nthe intellectual side, to find justification for the movements\r\nof revolt, and since established authority was\r\nupon the side of institutional life, the natural recourse\r\nwas appeal to some inalienable sacred authority resident\r\nin the protesting individuals. Thus “individualism”\r\nwas born, a theory which endowed singular persons\r\nin isolation from any associations, except those\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_87\"\u003e87\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwhich they deliberately formed for their own ends,\r\nwith native or natural rights. The revolt against old\r\nand limiting associations was converted, intellectually,\r\ninto the doctrine of independence of any and all associations.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThus the practical movement for the limitation of\r\nthe powers of government became associated, as in the\r\ninfluential philosophy of John Locke, with the doctrine\r\nthat the ground and justification of the restriction was\r\nprior non-political rights inherent in the very structure\r\nof the individual. From these tenets, it was a short\r\nstep to the conclusion that the sole end of government\r\nwas the protection of individuals in the rights which\r\nwere theirs by nature. The American revolution was\r\na rebellion against an established government, and it\r\nnaturally borrowed and expanded these ideas as the\r\nideological interpretation of the effort to obtain independence\r\nof the colonies. It is now easy for the\r\nimagination to conceive circumstances under which revolts\r\nagainst prior governmental forms would have\r\nfound its theoretical formulation in an assertion of\r\nthe rights of groups, of other associations than those\r\nof a political nature. There was no logic which rendered\r\nnecessary the appeal to the individual as an independent\r\nand isolated being. In abstract logic, it\r\nwould have sufficed to assert that some primary\r\ngroupings had claims which the state could not legitimately\r\nencroach upon. In that case, the celebrated\r\nmodern antithesis of the Individual and Social, and\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_88\"\u003e88\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe problem of their reconciliation, would not have\r\narisen. The problem would have taken the form of defining\r\nthe relationship which non-political groups bear\r\nto political union. But, as we have already remarked,\r\nthe obnoxious state was closely bound up in fact and in\r\ntradition with other associations, ecclesiastic (and\r\nthrough its influence with the family), and economic,\r\nsuch as gilds and corporations, and, by means of the\r\nchurch-state, even with unions for scientific inquiry and\r\nwith educational institutions. The easiest way out was\r\nto go back to the naked individual, to sweep away\r\nall associations as foreign to his nature and rights save\r\nas they proceeded from his own voluntary choice, and\r\nguaranteed his own private ends.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eNothing better exhibits the scope of the movement\r\nthan the fact that philosophic theories of knowledge\r\nmade the same appeal to the self, or ego, in the form of\r\npersonal consciousness identified with mind itself, that\r\npolitical theory made to the natural individual, as the\r\ncourt of ultimate resort. The schools of Locke and\r\nDescartes, however much they were opposed in other\r\nrespects, agreed in this, differing only as to whether\r\nthe sentient or rational nature of the individual was the\r\nfundamental thing. From philosophy the idea crept\r\ninto psychology, which became an introspective and\r\nintroverted account of isolated and ultimate private\r\nconsciousness. Henceforth moral and political individualism\r\ncould appeal to “scientific” warrant for its\r\ntenets and employ a vocabulary made current by psychology:—although\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_89\"\u003e89\u003c/span\u003e\r\nin fact the psychology appealed\r\nto as its scientific foundation was its own offspring.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe “individualistic” movement finds a classic expression\r\nin the great documents of the French Revolution,\r\nwhich at one stroke did away with all forms of\r\nassociation, leaving, in theory, the bare individual face\r\nto face with the state. It would hardly have reached\r\nthis point, however, if it had not been for a second\r\nfactor, which must be noted. A new scientific movement\r\nhad been made possible by the invention and\r\nuse of new mechanical appliances—the lens is typical—which\r\nfocused attention upon tools like the lever and\r\npendulum, which, although they had long been in use,\r\nhad not formed points of departure for scientific theory.\r\nThis new development in inquiry brought, as Bacon\r\nforetold, great economic changes in its wake. It more\r\nthan paid its debt to tools by leading to the invention\r\nof machines. The use of machinery in production and\r\ncommerce was followed by the creation of new powerful\r\nsocial conditions, personal opportunities and wants.\r\nTheir adequate manifestation was limited by established\r\npolitical and legal practices. The legal regulations\r\nso affected every phase of life which was interested\r\nin taking advantage of the new economic agencies as\r\nto hamper and oppress the free play of manufacture\r\nand exchange. The established custom of states, expressed\r\nintellectually in the theory of mercantilism\r\nagainst which Adam Smith wrote his account of “The\r\n(True) Wealth of Nations,” prevented the expansion\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_90\"\u003e90\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof trade between nations, a restriction which reacted\r\nto limit domestic industry. Internally, there was a\r\nnetwork of restrictions inherited from feudalism. The\r\nprices of labor and staples were not framed in the\r\nmarket by higgling but were set by justices of the\r\npeace. The development of industry was hampered\r\nby laws regulating choice of a calling, apprenticeship,\r\nmigration of workers from place to place,—and so on.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThus fear of government and desire to limit its operations,\r\nbecause they were hostile to the development\r\nof the new agencies of production and distribution\r\nof services and commodities, received powerful reënforcement.\r\nThe economic movement was perhaps the\r\nmore influential because it operated, not in the name\r\nof the individual and his inherent rights, but in the\r\nname of Nature. Economic “laws,” that of labor\r\nspringing from natural wants and leading to the creation\r\nof wealth, of present abstinence in behalf of future\r\nenjoyment leading to creation of capital effective in\r\npiling up still more wealth, the free play of competitive\r\nexchange, designated the law of supply and demand,\r\nwere “natural” laws. They were set in opposition to\r\npolitical laws as artificial, man-made affairs. The inherited\r\ntradition which remained least questioned was\r\na conception of Nature which made Nature something\r\nto conjure with. The older metaphysical conception\r\nof Natural Law was, however, changed into an economic\r\nconception; laws of nature, implanted in human\r\nnature, regulated the production and exchange of goods\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_91\"\u003e91\u003c/span\u003e\r\nand services, and in such a way that when they were\r\nkept free from artificial, that is political, meddling, they\r\nresulted in the maximum possible social prosperity and\r\nprogress. Popular opinion is little troubled by questions\r\nof logical consistency. The economic theory of\r\n\u003ci lang=\"fr\"\u003elaissez-faire\u003c/i\u003e, based upon belief in beneficent natural\r\nlaws which brought about harmony of personal profit\r\nand social benefit, was readily fused with the doctrine\r\nof natural rights. They both had the same practical\r\nimport, and what is logic between friends? Thus the\r\nprotest of the utilitarian school, which sponsored the\r\neconomic theory of natural law in economics, against\r\nnatural right theories had no effect in preventing the\r\npopular amalgam of the two sides.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe utilitarian economic theory was such an important\r\nfactor in developing the theory, as distinct from\r\nthe practice, of democratic government that it is worth\r\nwhile to expound it in outline. Each person naturally\r\nseeks the betterment of his own lot. This can be attained\r\nonly by industry. Each person is naturally the\r\nbest judge of his own interests, and, if left free from\r\nthe influence of artificially imposed restrictions, will\r\nexpress his judgment in his choice of work and exchange\r\nof services and goods. Thus, barring accident,\r\nhe will contribute to his own happiness in the measure\r\nof his energy in work, his shrewdness in exchange and\r\nhis self-denying thrift. Wealth and security are the\r\nnatural rewards of economic virtues. At the same\r\ntime, the industry, commercial zeal, and ability of individuals\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_92\"\u003e92\u003c/span\u003e\r\ncontribute to the social good. Under the\r\ninvisible hand of a beneficent providence which has\r\nframed natural laws, work, capital and trade operate\r\nharmoniously to the advantage and advance of men\r\ncollectively and individually. The foe to be dreaded is\r\ninterference of government. Political regulation is\r\nneeded only because individuals accidentally and purposely—since\r\nthe possession of property by the industrious\r\nand able is a temptation to the idle and\r\nshiftless—encroach upon one another’s activities and\r\nproperties. This encroachment is the essence of injustice,\r\nand the function of government is to secure justice—which\r\nsignifies chiefly the protection of property\r\nand of the contracts which attend commercial exchange.\r\nWithout the existence of the state men might appropriate\r\none another’s property. This appropriation is\r\nnot only unfair to the laborious individual, but by\r\nmaking property insecure discourages the forthputting\r\nof energy at all and thus weakens or destroys the\r\nspring of social progress. On the other hand, this doctrine\r\nof the function of the state operates automatically\r\nas a limit imposed to governmental activities. The\r\nstate is itself just only when it acts to secure justice—in\r\nthe sense just defined.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe political problem thus conceived is essentially a\r\nproblem of discovering and instating a technique which\r\nwill confine the operations of government as far as may\r\nbe to its legitimate business of protecting economic\r\ninterests, of which the interest a man has in the integrity\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_93\"\u003e93\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof his own life and body is a part. Rulers\r\nshare the ordinary cupidity to possess property with\r\na minimum of personal effort. Left to themselves they\r\ntake advantage of the power with which their official\r\nposition endows them to levy arbitrarily on the wealth\r\nof others. If they protect the industry and property\r\nof private citizens against the invasions of other private\r\ncitizens, it is only that they may have more resources\r\nupon which to draw for their own ends. The\r\nessential problem of government thus reduces itself to\r\nthis: What arrangements will prevent rulers from advancing\r\ntheir own interests at the expense of the ruled?\r\nOr, in positive terms, by what political means shall the\r\ninterests of the governors be identified with those of\r\nthe governed?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe answer was given, notably by James Mill, in a\r\nclassic formulation of the nature of political democracy.\r\nIts significant features were popular election of\r\nofficials, short terms of office and frequent elections.\r\nIf public officials were dependent upon citizens for official\r\nposition and its rewards, their personal interests\r\nwould coincide with those of people at large—at least\r\nof industrious and property-owning persons. Officials\r\nchosen by popular vote would find their election to\r\noffice dependent upon presenting evidence of their zeal\r\nand skill in protecting the interests of the populace.\r\nShort terms and frequent elections would ensure their\r\nbeing held to regular account; the polling-booth would\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_94\"\u003e94\u003c/span\u003e\r\nconstitute their day of judgment. The fear of it\r\nwould operate as a constant check.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eOf course in this account I have oversimplified what\r\nwas already an oversimplification. The dissertation of\r\nJames Mill was written before the passage of the\r\nReform Bill of 1832. Taken pragmatically, it was an\r\nargument for the extension of the suffrage, then largely\r\nin the hands of hereditary landowners, to manufacturers\r\nand merchants. James Mill had nothing but\r\ndread of pure democracies. He opposed the extension\r\nof the franchise to women.\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_8\" href=\"#Footnote_8\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e8\u003c/a\u003e He was interested in the\r\nnew “middle-class” forming under the influence of the\r\napplication of steam to manufacture and trade. His\r\nattitude is well expressed in his conviction that even if\r\nthe suffrage were extended downwards, the middle-class\r\n“which gives to science, art and legislation itself its\r\nmost distinguished ornaments, and which is the chief\r\nsource of all that is refined and exalted in human nature,\r\nis that portion of the community of which the\r\ninfluence would ultimately decide.” In spite, however,\r\nof oversimplification, and of its special historic motivation,\r\nthe doctrine claimed to rest upon universal psychological\r\ntruth; it affords a fair picture of the principles\r\nwhich were supposed to justify the movement\r\ntoward democratic government. It is unnecessary to\r\nindulge in extensive criticism. The differences between\r\nthe conditions postulated by the theory and those\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_95\"\u003e95\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwhich have actually obtained with the development of\r\ndemocratic governments speak for themselves. The\r\ndiscrepancy is a sufficient criticism. This disparity\r\nitself shows, however, that what has happened sprang\r\nfrom no theory but was inherent in what was going on\r\nnot only without respect to theories but without regard\r\nto politics: because, generally speaking, of the use of\r\nsteam applied to mechanical inventions.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt would be a great mistake, however, to regard the\r\nidea of the isolated individual possessed of inherent\r\nrights “by nature” apart from association, and the idea\r\nof economic laws as natural, in comparison with which\r\npolitical laws being artificial are injurious (save when\r\ncarefully subordinated), as idle and impotent. The\r\nideas were something more than flies on the turning\r\nwheels. They did not originate the movement toward\r\npopular government, but they did profoundly influence\r\nthe forms which it assumed. Or perhaps it would be\r\ntruer to say that persistent older conditions, to which\r\nthe theories were more faithful than to the state of\r\naffairs they professed to report, were so reënforced by\r\nthe professed philosophy of the democratic state, as to\r\nexercise a great influence. The result was a skew, a\r\ndeflection and distortion, in democratic forms. Putting\r\nthe “individualistic” matter in a gross statement,\r\nwhich has to be corrected by later qualifications, we\r\nmay say that “the individual,” about which the new\r\nphilosophy centered itself, was in process of complete\r\nsubmergence in fact at the very time in which he was\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_96\"\u003e96\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbeing elevated on high in theory. As to the alleged\r\nsubordination of political affairs to natural forces and\r\nlaws, we may say that actual economic conditions were\r\nthoroughly artificial, in the sense in which the theory\r\ncondemned the artificial. They supplied the man-made\r\ninstrumentalities by which the new governmental agencies\r\nwere grasped and used to suit the desires of the\r\nnew class of business men.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBoth of these statements are formal as well as sweeping.\r\nTo acquire intelligible meaning they must be developed\r\nin some detail. Graham Wallas prefixed to\r\nthe first chapter of his book entitled “The Great Society”\r\nthe following words of Woodrow Wilson, taken\r\nfrom \u003ccite\u003eThe New Freedom\u003c/cite\u003e: “Yesterday and ever since\r\nhistory began, men were related to one another as\r\nindividuals…. To-day, the everyday relationships\r\nof men are largely with great impersonal concerns, with\r\norganizations, not with other individuals. Now this is\r\nnothing short of a new social age, a new age of human\r\nrelationships, a new stage-setting for the drama of\r\nlife.” If we accept these words as containing even a\r\nmoderate degree of truth, they indicate the enormous\r\nineptitude of the individualistic philosophy to meet the\r\nneeds and direct the factors of the new age. They\r\nsuggest what is meant by saying the theory of an individual\r\npossessed of desires and claims and endued with\r\nforesight and prudence and love of bettering himself\r\nwas framed at just the time when the individual was\r\ncounting for less in the direction of social affairs, at a\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_97\"\u003e97\u003c/span\u003e\r\ntime when mechanical forces and vast impersonal organizations\r\nwere determining the frame of things.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe statement that “yesterday and even since history\r\nbegan, men were related to one another as individuals”\r\nis not true. Men have always been associated\r\ntogether in living, and association in conjoint behavior\r\nhas affected their relations to one another as individuals.\r\nIt is enough to recall how largely human relations\r\nhave been permeated by patterns derived directly\r\nand indirectly from the family; even the state was a\r\ndynastic affair. But none the less the contrast which\r\nMr. Wilson had in mind is a fact. The earlier associations\r\nwere mostly of the type well termed by Cooley\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_9\" href=\"#Footnote_9\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e9\u003c/a\u003e\r\n“face-to-face.” Those which were important, which\r\nreally counted in forming emotional and intellectual\r\ndispositions, were local and contiguous and consequently\r\nvisible. Human beings, if they shared in them\r\nat all, shared directly and in a way of which they were\r\naware in both their affections and their beliefs. The\r\nstate, even when it despotically interfered, was remote,\r\nan agency alien to daily life. Otherwise it entered\r\nmen’s lives through custom and common law. No matter\r\nhow widespread their operation might be, it was not\r\ntheir breadth and inclusiveness which counted but their\r\nimmediate local presence. The church was indeed both\r\na universal and an intimate affair. But it entered into\r\nthe life of most human beings not through its universality,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_98\"\u003e98\u003c/span\u003e\r\nas far as their thoughts and habits were concerned,\r\nbut through an immediate ministration of rites\r\nand sacraments. The new technology applied in production\r\nand commerce resulted in a social revolution.\r\nThe local communities without intent or forecast found\r\ntheir affairs conditioned by remote and invisible organizations.\r\nThe scope of the latter’s activities was so\r\nvast and their impact upon face-to-face associations\r\nso pervasive and unremitting that it is no exaggeration\r\nto speak of “a new age of human relations.” The\r\nGreat Society created by steam and electricity may be\r\na society, but it is no community. The invasion of the\r\ncommunity by the new and relatively impersonal and\r\nmechanical modes of combined human behavior is the\r\noutstanding fact of modern life. In these ways of\r\naggregate activity the community, in its strict sense,\r\nis not a conscious partner, and over them it has no\r\ndirect control. They were, however, the chief factors\r\nin bringing into being national and territorial states.\r\nThe need of some control over them was the chief\r\nagency in making the government of these states democratic\r\nor popular in the current sense of these words.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhy, then, was a movement, which involved so much\r\nsubmerging of personal action in the overflowing consequences\r\nof remote and inaccessible collective actions,\r\nreflected in a philosophy of individualism? A complete\r\nanswer is out of the question. Two considerations are,\r\nhowever, obvious and significant. The new conditions\r\ninvolved a release of human potentialities previously\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_99\"\u003e99\u003c/span\u003e\r\ndormant. While their impact was unsettling to the\r\ncommunity, it was liberating with respect to single\r\npersons, while its oppressive phase was hidden in the\r\nimpenetrable mists of the future. Speaking with\r\ngreater correctness, the oppressive phase affected primarily\r\nthe elements of the community which were also\r\ndepressed in the older and semi-feudal conditions. Since\r\nthey did not count for much anyway, being traditionally\r\nthe drawers of water and hewers of wood, having\r\nemerged only in a legal sense from serfdom, the effect\r\nof new economic conditions upon the laboring masses\r\nwent largely unnoted. Day laborers were still in effect,\r\nas openly in the classic philosophy, underlying conditions\r\nof community life rather than members of it.\r\nOnly gradually did the effect upon them become apparent;\r\nby that time they had attained enough power—were\r\nsufficiently important factors in the new economic\r\nrégime—to obtain political emancipation, and thus\r\nfigure in the forms of the democratic state. Meanwhile\r\nthe liberating effect was markedly conspicuous with respect\r\nto the members of the “middle-class,” the manufacturing\r\nand mercantile class. It would be short-sighted\r\nto limit the release of powers to opportunities\r\nto procure wealth and enjoy its fruits, although the\r\ncreation of material wants and ability to satisfy them\r\nare not to be lightly passed over. Initiative, inventiveness,\r\nforesight and planning were also stimulated and\r\nconfirmed. This manifestation of new powers was on a\r\nsufficiently large scale to strike and absorb attention.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_100\"\u003e100\u003c/span\u003e\r\nThe result was formulated as the discovery of the individual.\r\nThe customary is taken for granted; it operates\r\nsubconsciously. Breach of wont and use is focal;\r\nit forms “consciousness.” The necessary and persistent\r\nmodes of association went unnoticed. The new ones,\r\nwhich were voluntarily undertaken, occupied thought\r\nexclusively. They monopolized the observed horizon.\r\n“Individualism” was a doctrine which stated what was\r\nfocal in thought and purpose.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe other consideration is akin. In the release of\r\nnew powers singular persons were emancipated from a\r\nmass of old habits, regulations and institutions. We\r\nhave already noted how the methods of production and\r\nexchange made possible by the new technology were\r\nhampered by the rules and customs of the prior régime.\r\nThe latter were then felt to be intolerably restrictive\r\nand oppressive. Since they hampered the free play of\r\ninitiative and commercial activity, they were artificial\r\nand enslaving. The struggle for emancipation from\r\ntheir influence was identified with the liberty of the individual\r\nas such; in the intensity of the struggle, associations\r\nand institutions were condemned wholesale as foes\r\nof freedom save as they were products of personal\r\nagreement and voluntary choice. That many forms of\r\nassociation remained practically untouched was easily\r\noverlooked, just because they were matters of course.\r\nIndeed, any attempt to touch them, notably the established\r\nform of family association and the legal institution\r\nof property, were looked upon as subversive, as\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_101\"\u003e101\u003c/span\u003e\r\nlicense, not liberty, in the sanctified phrase. The identification\r\nof democratic forms of government with this\r\nindividualism was easy. The right of suffrage represented\r\nfor the mass a release of hitherto dormant capacity\r\nand also, in appearance at least, a power to\r\nshape social relations on the basis of individual volition.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003ePopular franchise and majority rule afforded the\r\nimagination a picture of individuals in their untrammeled\r\nindividual sovereignty making the state.\r\nTo adherents and opponents alike it presented the\r\nspectacle of a pulverizing of established associations\r\ninto the desires and intentions of atomic individuals.\r\nThe forces, springing from combination and institutional\r\norganization which controlled below the surface\r\nthe acts which formally issued from individuals, went\r\nunnoted. It is the essence of ordinary thought to\r\ngrasp the external scene and hold it as reality. The\r\nfamiliar eulogies of the spectacle of “free men” going\r\nto the polls to determine by their personal volitions the\r\npolitical forms under which they should live is a specimen\r\nof this tendency to take whatever is readily seen as\r\nthe full reality of a situation. In physical matters\r\nnatural science has successfully challenged this attitude.\r\nIn human matters it remains in almost full\r\nforce.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe opponents of popular government were no more\r\nprescient than its supporters, although they showed\r\nmore logical sense in following the assumed individualistic\r\npremise to its conclusion: the disintegration of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_102\"\u003e102\u003c/span\u003e\r\nsociety. Carlyle’s savage attacks upon the notion of\r\na society held together only by a “cash-nexus” are\r\nwell known. Its inevitable terminus to him was “anarchy\r\nplus a constable.” He did not see that the new\r\nindustrial régime was forging social bonds as rigid as\r\nthose which were disappearing and much more extensive—whether\r\ndesirable ties or not is another matter.\r\nMacaulay, the intellectualist of the Whigs, asserted that\r\nthe extension of suffrage to the masses would surely\r\nresult in arousing the predatory impulses of the\r\npropertyless masses who would use their new political\r\npower to despoil the middle as well as upper class. He\r\nadded that while there was no longer danger that the\r\ncivilized portions of humanity would be overthrown by\r\nthe savage and barbarous portions, it was possible that\r\nin the bosom of civilization would be engendered the\r\nmalady which would destroy it.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIncidentally we have trenched upon the other doctrine,\r\nthe idea that there is something inherently\r\n“natural” and amenable to “natural law” in the working\r\nof economic forces, in contrast with the man-made\r\nartificiality of political institutions. The idea of a\r\nnatural individual in his isolation possessed of full-fledged\r\nwants, of energies to be expended according to\r\nhis own volition, and of a ready-made faculty of foresight\r\nand prudent calculation is as much a fiction in\r\npsychology as the doctrine of the individual in possession\r\nof antecedent political rights is one in politics.\r\nThe liberalist school made much of desires, but to them\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_103\"\u003e103\u003c/span\u003e\r\ndesire was a conscious matter deliberately directed\r\nupon a known goal of pleasures. Desire and pleasure\r\nwere both open and above-board affairs. The mind was\r\nseen as if always in the bright sunlight, having no\r\nhidden recesses, no unexplorable nooks, nothing underground.\r\nIts operations were like the moves in a fair\r\ngame of chess. They are in the open; the players\r\nhave nothing up their sleeves; the changes of position\r\ntake place by express intent and in plain sight; they\r\ntake place according to rules all of which are known\r\nin advance. Calculation and skill, or dullness and inaptitude,\r\ndetermine the result. Mind was “consciousness,”\r\nand the latter was a clear, transparent, self-revealing\r\nmedium in which wants, efforts and purposes\r\nwere exposed without distortion.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eTo-day it is generally admitted that conduct proceeds\r\nfrom conditions which are largely out of focal\r\nattention, and which can be discovered and brought\r\nto light only by inquiries more exacting than those\r\nwhich teach us the concealed relationships involved\r\nin gross physical phenomena. What is not so generally\r\nacknowledged is that the underlying and generative\r\nconditions of concrete behavior are social as well as\r\norganic: much more social than organic as far as the\r\nmanifestation of \u003cem\u003edifferential\u003c/em\u003e wants, purposes and\r\nmethods of operation is concerned. To those who appreciate\r\nthis fact, it is evident that the desires, aims\r\nand standards of satisfaction which the dogma of\r\n“natural” economic processes and laws assumes are\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_104\"\u003e104\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthemselves socially conditioned phenomena. They are\r\nreflections into the singular human being of customs\r\nand institutions; they are not natural, that is, “native,”\r\norganic propensities. They mirror a state of civilization.\r\nEven more true, if possible, is it that the form\r\nin which work is done, industry carried on, is the\r\noutcome of accumulated culture, not an original possession\r\nof persons in their own structure. There is\r\nlittle that can be called industry and still less that\r\nconstitutes a store of wealth until tools exist, and tools\r\nare the results of slow processes of transmission. The\r\ndevelopment of tools into machines, the characteristic\r\nof the industrial age, was made possible only by taking\r\nadvantage of science socially accumulated and transmitted.\r\nThe technique of employing tools and\r\nmachines was equally something which had to be\r\nlearned; it was no natural endowment but something\r\nacquired by observing others, by instruction and\r\ncommunication.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThese sentences are a poor and pallid way of conveying\r\nthe outstanding fact. There are organic or\r\nnative needs, of course, as for food, protection and\r\nmates. There are innate structures which facilitate\r\nthem in securing the external objects through which\r\nthey are met. But the only kind of industry they are\r\ncapable of giving rise to is a precarious livelihood\r\nobtained by gathering such edible plants and animals\r\nas chance might throw in the way: the lowest type of\r\nsavagery just emerging from a brute condition. Nor,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_105\"\u003e105\u003c/span\u003e\r\nstrictly speaking, could they effect even this meager\r\nresult. For because of the phenomenon of helpless\r\ninfancy even such a primitive régime depends upon the\r\nassistance of associated action, including that most\r\nvaluable form of assistance: learning from others.\r\nWhat would even savage industry be without the use\r\nof fire, of weapons, of woven articles, all of which involve\r\ncommunication and tradition? The industrial\r\nrégime which the authors of “natural” economy contemplated\r\npresupposed wants, tools, materials, purposes,\r\ntechniques and abilities in a thousand ways dependent\r\nupon associated behavior. Thus in the sense\r\nin which the authors of the doctrine employed the word\r\n“artificial,” these things were intensely and cumulatively\r\nartificial. What they were really after was a\r\nchanged direction of custom and institutions. The\r\noutcome of the acts of those who were engaged in forwarding\r\nthe new industry and commerce was a new set\r\nof customs and institutions. The latter were as much\r\nextensive and enduring conjoint modes of life as were\r\nthose which they displaced; more so in their sweep and\r\nforce.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe bearing of this fact upon political theory and\r\npractice is evident. Not only were the wants and intentions\r\nwhich actually operated functions of associated\r\nlife, but they re-determined the forms and temper of this\r\nlife. Athenians did not buy Sunday newspapers, make\r\ninvestments in stocks and bonds, nor want motor cars.\r\nNor do we to-day want for the most part beautiful\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_106\"\u003e106\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbodies and beauty of architectural surroundings. We\r\nare mostly satisfied with the result of cosmetics and\r\nwith ugly slums, and oftentimes with equally ugly\r\npalaces. We do not “naturally” or organically need\r\nthem, but we \u003cem\u003ewant\u003c/em\u003e them. If we do not demand them\r\ndirectly we demand them none the less effectively. For\r\nthey are necessary consequences of the things upon\r\nwhich we have set our hearts. In other words, a community\r\nwants (in the only intelligible sense of wanting,\r\neffective demand) either education or ignorance, lovely\r\nor squalid surroundings, railway trains or ox-carts,\r\nstocks and bonds, pecuniary profit or constructive arts,\r\naccording as associated activity presents these things to\r\nthem habitually, esteems them, and supplies the means\r\nof attaining them. But that is only half the tale.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAssociated behavior directed toward objects which\r\nfulfill wants not only produces those objects, but\r\nbrings customs and institutions into being. The indirect\r\nand unthought-of consequences are usually more\r\nimportant than the direct. The fallacy of supposing\r\nthat the new industrial régime would produce just and\r\nfor the most part only the consequences consciously\r\nforecast and aimed at was the counterpart of the\r\nfallacy that the wants and efforts characteristic of it\r\nwere functions of “natural” human beings. They\r\narose out of institutionalized action and they resulted\r\nin institutionalized action. The disparity between the\r\nresults of the industrial revolution and the conscious\r\nintentions of those engaged in it is a remarkable case\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_107\"\u003e107\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof the extent to which indirect consequences of conjoint\r\nactivity outweigh, beyond the possibility of\r\nreckoning, the results directly contemplated. Its outcome\r\nwas the development of those extensive and invisible\r\nbonds, those “great impersonal concerns, organizations,”\r\nwhich now pervasively affect the thinking,\r\nwilling and doing of everybody, and which have ushered\r\nin the “new era of human relationships.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eEqually undreamed of was the effect of the massive\r\norganizations and complicated interactions upon the\r\nstate. Instead of the independent, self-moved individuals\r\ncontemplated by the theory, we have standardized\r\ninterchangeable units. Persons are joined together,\r\nnot because they have voluntarily chosen to be united\r\nin these forms, but because vast currents are running\r\nwhich bring men together. Green and red lines, marking\r\nout political boundaries, are on the maps and affect\r\nlegislation and jurisdiction of courts, but railways, mails\r\nand telegraph-wires disregard them. The consequences\r\nof the latter influence more profoundly those living\r\nwithin the legal local units than do boundary lines.\r\nThe forms of associated action characteristic of the\r\npresent economic order are so massive and extensive\r\nthat they determine the most significant constituents\r\nof the public and the residence of power. Inevitably\r\nthey reach out to grasp the agencies of government;\r\nthey are controlling factors in legislation and administration.\r\nNot chiefly because of deliberate and planned\r\nself-interest, large as may be its rôle, but because they\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_108\"\u003e108\u003c/span\u003e\r\nare the most potent and best organized of social forces.\r\nIn a word, the new forms of combined action due to\r\nthe modern economic régime control present politics,\r\nmuch as dynastic interests controlled those of two centuries\r\nago. They affect thinking and desire more\r\nthan did the interests which formerly moved the state.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe have spoken as if the displacement of old legal\r\nand political institutions was all but complete. That\r\nis a gross exaggeration. Some of the most fundamental\r\nof traditions and habits have hardly been\r\naffected at all. It is enough to mention the institution\r\nof property. The naïveté with which the philosophy\r\nof “natural” economics ignored the effect upon industry\r\nand commerce of the legal status of property,\r\nthe way in which it identified wealth and property in\r\nthe legal form in which the latter had existed, is almost\r\nincredible to-day. But the simple fact is that technological\r\nindustry has not operated with any great degree\r\nof freedom. It has been confined and deflected at\r\nevery point; it has never taken its own course. The\r\nengineer has worked in subordination to the business\r\nmanager whose primary concern is not with wealth\r\nbut with the interests of property as worked out in\r\nthe feudal and semi-feudal period. Thus the one point\r\nin which the philosophers of “Individualism” predicted\r\ntruly was that in which they did not predict at all,\r\nbut in which they merely clarified and simplified established\r\nwont and use: when, that is, they asserted that\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_109\"\u003e109\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe main business of government is to make property\r\ninterests secure.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eA large part of the indictments which are now\r\ndrawn against technological industry are chargeable\r\nto the unchanged persistence of a legal institution\r\ninherited from the pre-industrial age. It\r\nis confusing, however, to identify in a wholesale way\r\nthis issue with the question of private property. It\r\nis conceivable that private property may function\r\nsocially. It does so even now to a considerable degree.\r\nOtherwise it could not be supported for a day. The\r\nextent of its social utility is what blinds us to the\r\nnumerous and great social disutilities that attend its\r\npresent working, or at least reconcile us to its continuation.\r\nThe real issue or at least the issue to be\r\nfirst settled concerns the conditions under which the\r\ninstitution of private property legally and politically\r\nfunctions.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe thus reach our conclusion. The same forces\r\nwhich have brought about the forms of democratic\r\ngovernment, general suffrage, executives and legislators\r\nchosen by majority vote, have also brought about conditions\r\nwhich halt the social and humane ideals that demand the\r\nutilization of government as the genuine instrumentality\r\nof an inclusive and fraternally associated\r\npublic. “The new age of human relationships” has no\r\npolitical agencies worthy of it. The democratic public\r\nis still largely inchoate and unorganized.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap x-ebookmaker-drop\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_110\"\u003e110\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch2 class=\"nobreak\" id=\"toclink_110\"\u003eCHAPTER IV\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cspan class=\"subhead\"\u003eTHE ECLIPSE OF THE PUBLIC\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eOptimism about democracy is to-day under a cloud.\r\nWe are familiar with denunciation and criticism which,\r\nhowever, often reveal their emotional source in their\r\npeevish and undiscriminating tone. Many of them\r\nsuffer from the same error into which earlier laudations\r\nfell. They assume that democracy is the product of\r\nan idea, of a single and consistent intent. Carlyle\r\nwas no admirer of democracy, but in a lucid moment\r\nhe said: “Invent the printing press and democracy is\r\ninevitable.” Add to this: Invent the railway, the telegraph,\r\nmass manufacture and concentration of population\r\nin urban centers, and some form of democratic\r\ngovernment is, humanly speaking, inevitable. Political\r\ndemocracy as it exists to-day calls for adverse\r\ncriticism in abundance. But the criticism is only an\r\nexhibition of querulousness and spleen or of a superiority\r\ncomplex, unless it takes cognizance of the conditions\r\nout of which popular government has issued.\r\nAll intelligent political criticism is comparative. It\r\ndeals not with all-or-none situations, but with practical\r\nalternatives; an absolutistic indiscriminate attitude,\r\nwhether in praise or blame, testifies to the heat of feeling\r\nrather than the light of thought.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_111\"\u003e111\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAmerican democratic polity was developed out of genuine\r\ncommunity life, that is, association in local and\r\nsmall centers where industry was mainly agricultural\r\nand where production was carried on mainly with\r\nhand tools. It took form when English political habits\r\nand legal institutions worked under pioneer conditions.\r\nThe forms of association were stable, even though their\r\nunits were mobile and migratory. Pioneer conditions\r\nput a high premium upon personal work, skill, ingenuity,\r\ninitiative and adaptability, and upon neighborly\r\nsociability. The township or some not much larger\r\narea was the political unit, the town meeting the\r\npolitical medium, and roads, schools, the peace of the\r\ncommunity, were the political objectives. The state\r\nwas a sum of such units, and the national state\r\na federation—unless perchance a confederation—of\r\nstates. The imagination of the founders did not travel\r\nfar beyond what could be accomplished and understood\r\nin a congeries of self-governing communities. The\r\nmachinery provided for the selection of the chief executive\r\nof the federal union is illustrative evidence. The\r\nelectoral college assumed that citizens would choose\r\nmen locally known for their high standing; and that\r\nthese men when chosen would gather together for consultation\r\nto name some one known to them for his\r\nprobity and public spirit and knowledge. The rapidity\r\nwith which the scheme fell into disuse is evidence of the\r\ntransitoriness of the state of affairs that was predicated.\r\nBut at the outset there was no dream of the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_112\"\u003e112\u003c/span\u003e\r\ntime when the very names of the presidential electors\r\nwould be unknown to the mass of the voters, when they\r\nwould plump for a “ticket” arranged in a more or less\r\nprivate caucus, and when the electoral college would\r\nbe an impersonal registering machine, such that it\r\nwould be treachery to employ the personal judgment\r\nwhich was originally contemplated as the essence of the\r\naffair.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe local conditions under which our institutions\r\ntook shape is well indicated by our system, apparently\r\nso systemless, of public education. Any one who has\r\ntried to explain it to a European will understand what\r\nis meant. One is asked, say, what method of administration\r\nis followed, what is the course of study and\r\nwhat the authorized methods of teaching. The American\r\nmember to the dialogue replies that in this state,\r\nor more likely county, or town, or even some section\r\nof a town called a district, matters stand thus and\r\nthus; somewhere else, so and so. The participant from\r\nthis side is perhaps thought by the foreigner to be\r\nengaged in concealing his ignorance; and it would certainly\r\ntake a veritable cyclopedic knowledge to state\r\nthe matter in its entirety. The impossibility of making\r\nany moderately generalized reply renders it almost indispensable\r\nto resort to a historical account in order\r\nto be intelligible. A little colony, the members of\r\nwhich are probably mostly known to one another in\r\nadvance, settle in what is almost, or quite, a wilderness.\r\nFrom belief in its benefits and by tradition, chiefly religious,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_113\"\u003e113\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthey wish their children to know at least how to\r\nread, write and figure. Families can only rarely\r\nprovide a tutor; the neighbors over a certain area, in\r\nNew England an area smaller even than the township,\r\ncombine in a “school district.” They get a schoolhouse\r\nbuilt, perhaps by their own labor, and hire a\r\nteacher by means of a committee, and the teacher is\r\npaid from the taxes. Custom determines the limited\r\ncourse of study, and tradition the methods of the\r\nteacher, modified by whatever personal insight and\r\nskill he may bring to bear. The wilderness is gradually\r\nsubdued; a network of highways, then of railways,\r\nunite the previously scattered communities. Large\r\ncities grow up; studies grow more numerous and\r\nmethods more carefully scrutinized. The larger unit,\r\nthe state, but not the federal state, provides schools\r\nfor training teachers and their qualifications are more\r\ncarefully looked into and tested. But subject to certain\r\nquite general conditions imposed by the state-legislature,\r\nbut not the national state, local maintenance\r\nand control remain the rule. The community pattern\r\nis more complicated, but is not destroyed. The instance\r\nseems richly instructive as to the state of affairs\r\nunder which our borrowed, English, political institutions\r\nwere reshaped and forwarded.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe have inherited, in short, local town-meeting practices\r\nand ideas. But we live and act and have our being\r\nin a continental national state. We are held together\r\nby non-political bonds, and the political forms are\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_114\"\u003e114\u003c/span\u003e\r\nstretched and legal institutions patched in an \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003ead hoc\u003c/i\u003e\r\nand improvised manner to do the work they have to\r\ndo. Political structures fix the channels in which non-political,\r\nindustrialized currents flow. Railways, travel\r\nand transportation, commerce, the mails, telegraph and\r\ntelephone, newspapers, create enough similarity of ideas\r\nand sentiments to keep the thing going as a whole, for\r\nthey create interaction and interdependence. The unprecedented\r\nthing is that states, as distinguished from\r\nmilitary empires, can exist over such a wide area. The\r\nnotion of maintaining a unified state, even nominally\r\nself-governing, over a country as extended as the\r\nUnited States and consisting of a large and racially\r\ndiversified population would once have seemed the wildest\r\nof fancies. It was assumed that such a state could\r\nbe found only in territories hardly larger than a city-state\r\nand with a homogeneous population. It seemed\r\nalmost self-evident to Plato—as to Rousseau later—that\r\na genuine state could hardly be larger than the\r\nnumber of persons capable of personal acquaintance\r\nwith one another. Our modern state-unity is due to\r\nthe consequences of technology employed so as to facilitate\r\nthe rapid and easy circulation of opinions and\r\ninformation, and so as to generate constant and intricate\r\ninteraction far beyond the limits of face-to-face\r\ncommunities. Political and legal forms have only piece-meal\r\nand haltingly, with great lag, accommodated themselves\r\nto the industrial transformation. The elimination\r\nof distance, at the base of which are physical\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_115\"\u003e115\u003c/span\u003e\r\nagencies, has called into being the new form of political\r\nassociation.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe wonder of the performance is the greater because\r\nof the odds against which it has been achieved.\r\nThe stream of immigrants which has poured in is so\r\nlarge and heterogeneous that under conditions which\r\nformerly obtained it would have disrupted any\r\nsemblance of unity as surely as the migratory invasion\r\nof alien hordes once upset the social equilibrium\r\nof the European continent. No deliberately adopted\r\nmeasures could have accomplished what has actually\r\nhappened. Mechanical forces have operated, and it\r\nis no cause for surprise if the effect is more mechanical\r\nthan vital. The reception of new elements of population\r\nin large number from heterogeneous peoples, often\r\nhostile to one another at home, and the welding them\r\ninto even an outward show of unity is an extraordinary\r\nfeat. In many respects, the consolidation has occurred\r\nso rapidly and ruthlessly that much of value has\r\nbeen lost which different peoples might have contributed.\r\nThe creation of political unity has also\r\npromoted social and intellectual uniformity, a standardization\r\nfavorable to mediocrity. Opinion has been\r\nregimented as well as outward behavior. The temper\r\nand flavor of the pioneer have evaporated with extraordinary\r\nrapidity; their precipitate, as is often noted,\r\nis apparent only in the wild-west romance and the\r\nmovie. What Bagehot called the cake of custom\r\nformed with increasing acceleration, and the cake is\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_116\"\u003e116\u003c/span\u003e\r\ntoo often flat and soggy. Mass production is not\r\nconfined to the factory.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe resulting political integration has confounded\r\nthe expectations of earlier critics of popular government\r\nas much as it must surprise its early backers if\r\nthey are gazing from on high upon the present scene.\r\nThe critics predicted disintegration, instability. They\r\nforesaw the new society falling apart, dissolving into\r\nmutually repellent animated grains of sand. They,\r\ntoo, took seriously the theory of “Individualism” as the\r\nbasis of democratic government. A stratification of\r\nsociety into immemorial classes within which each person\r\nperformed his stated duties according to his fixed\r\nposition seemed to them the only warrant of stability.\r\nThey had no faith that human beings released from the\r\npressure of this system could hold together in any\r\nunity. Hence they prophesied a flux of governmental\r\nrégimes, as individuals formed factions, seized power,\r\nand then lost it as some newly improvised faction\r\nproved stronger. Had the facts conformed to the\r\ntheory of Individualism, they would doubtless have been\r\nright. But, like the authors of the theory, they ignored\r\nthe technological forces making for consolidation.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn spite of attained integration, or rather perhaps because\r\nof its nature, the Public seems to be lost; it is certainly\r\nbewildered.\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_10\" href=\"#Footnote_10\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e10\u003c/a\u003e The government, officials and their\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_117\"\u003e117\u003c/span\u003e\r\nactivities, are plainly with us. Legislatures make laws\r\nwith luxurious abandon; subordinate officials engage in\r\na losing struggle to enforce some of them; judges on the\r\nbench deal as best they can with the steadily mounting\r\npile of disputes that come before them. But where is\r\nthe public which these officials are supposed to represent?\r\nHow much more is it than geographical names and\r\nofficial titles? The United States, the state of Ohio\r\nor New York, the county of this and the city of that?\r\nIs the public much more than what a cynical diplomat\r\nonce called Italy: a geographical expression? Just as\r\nphilosophers once imputed a substance to qualities and\r\ntraits in order that the latter might have something in\r\nwhich to inhere and thereby gain a conceptual solidity\r\nand consistency which they lacked on their face, so perhaps\r\nour political “common-sense” philosophy imputes\r\na public only to support and substantiate the behavior\r\nof officials. How can the latter be public officers, we\r\ndespairingly ask, unless there is a public? If a public\r\nexists, it is surely as uncertain about its own\r\nwhereabouts as philosophers since Hume have been\r\nabout the residence and make-up of the self. The\r\nnumber of voters who take advantage of their majestic\r\nright is steadily decreasing in proportion to those who\r\nmight use it. The ratio of actual to eligible voters is\r\nnow about one-half. In spite of somewhat frantic appeal\r\nand organized effort, the endeavor to bring voters\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_118\"\u003e118\u003c/span\u003e\r\nto a sense of their privileges and duties has so far been\r\nnoted for failure. A few preach the impotence of all\r\npolitics; the many nonchalantly practice abstinence and\r\nindulge in indirect action. Skepticism regarding the\r\nefficacy of voting is openly expressed, not only in the\r\ntheories of intellectuals, but in the words of lowbrow\r\nmasses: “What difference does it make whether I vote\r\nor not? Things go on just the same anyway. My\r\nvote never changed anything.” Those somewhat more\r\nreflective add: “It is nothing but a fight between the\r\nins and the outs. The only difference made by an\r\nelection is as to who get the jobs, draw the salaries and\r\nshake down the plum tree.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThose still more inclined to generalization assert\r\nthat the whole apparatus of political activities is a\r\nkind of protective coloration to conceal the fact that\r\nbig business rules the governmental roost in any case.\r\nBusiness is the order of the day, and the attempt to\r\nstop or deflect its course is as futile as Mrs. Partington\r\nessaying to sweep back the tides with a broom.\r\nMost of those who hold these opinions would profess\r\nto be shocked if the doctrine of economic determinism\r\nwere argumentatively expounded to them, but they act\r\nupon a virtual belief in it. Nor is acceptance of the\r\ndoctrine limited to radical socialists. It is implicit in\r\nthe attitude of men of big business and financial interests,\r\nwho revile the former as destructive “Bolshevists.”\r\nFor it is their firm belief that “prosperity”—a word\r\nwhich has taken on religious color—is the great need\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_119\"\u003e119\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof the country, that they are its authors and guardians,\r\nand hence by right the determiners of polity. Their\r\ndenunciations of the “materialism” of socialists is\r\nbased simply upon the fact that the latter want a different\r\ndistribution of material force and well-being\r\nthan that which satisfies those now in control.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe unfitness of whatever public exists, with respect\r\nto the government which is nominally its organ, is made\r\nmanifest in the extra-legal agencies which have grown\r\nup. Intermediary groups are closest to the political\r\nconduct of affairs. It is interesting to compare the\r\nEnglish literature of the eighteenth century regarding\r\nfactions with the status actually occupied by parties.\r\nFactionalism was decried by all thinkers as the chief\r\nenemy to political stability. Their voice of condemnation\r\nis reëchoed in the writing of early nineteenth-century\r\nAmerican writers on politics. Extensive and\r\nconsolidated factions under the name of parties are\r\nnow not only a matter of course, but popular imagination\r\ncan conceive of no other way by which officials\r\nmay be selected and governmental affairs carried on.\r\nThe centralizing movement has reached a point where\r\neven a third party can lead only a spasmodic and\r\nprecarious existence. Instead of individuals who in\r\nthe privacy of their consciousness make choices which\r\nare carried into effect by personal volition, there are\r\ncitizens who have the blessed opportunity to vote for\r\na ticket of men mostly unknown to them, and which is\r\nmade up for them by an under-cover machine in a\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_120\"\u003e120\u003c/span\u003e\r\ncaucus whose operations constitute a kind of political\r\npredestination. There are those who speak as if ability\r\nto choose between two tickets were a high exercise of\r\nindividual freedom. But it is hardly the kind of liberty\r\ncontemplated by the authors of the individualistic doctrine.\r\n“Nature abhors a vacuum.” When the public\r\nis as uncertain and obscure as it is to-day, and hence\r\nas remote from government, bosses with their political\r\nmachines fill the void between government and the\r\npublic. Who pulls the strings which move the bosses\r\nand generates power to run the machines is a matter\r\nof surmise rather than of record, save for an occasional\r\novert scandal.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eQuite aside, however, from the allegation that “Big\r\nBusiness” plays the tune and pulls the strings to which\r\nbosses dance, it is true that parties are not creators\r\nof policies to any large extent at the present time.\r\nFor parties yield in piece-meal accommodation to social\r\ncurrents, irrespective of professed principles. As these\r\nlines are written a weekly periodical remarks: “Since\r\nthe end of the Civil War practically all the more important\r\nmeasures which have been embodied in federal\r\nlegislation have been reached without a national election\r\nwhich turned upon the issue and which divided the two\r\nmajor parties.” Reform of civil service, regulation of\r\nrailways, popular election of senators, national income\r\ntax, suffrage for women, and prohibition are supported\r\nto substantiate the statement. Hence its other\r\nremark appears justified: “American party politics\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_121\"\u003e121\u003c/span\u003e\r\nseem at times to be a device for preventing issues which\r\nmay excite popular feeling and involve bitter controversies\r\nfrom being put up to the American people.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eA negatively corroborating fact is seen in the fate of\r\nthe Child Labor amendment. The need of giving to\r\nCongress power to regulate child labor, denied it by decisions\r\nof the Supreme Court, had been asserted in the\r\nplatforms of all political parties; the idea was endorsed\r\nby the last three of the presidents belonging to the\r\nparty in power. Yet so far, the proposed amendment\r\nto the constitution has not begun to secure the needed\r\nsupport. Political parties may rule, but they do not\r\ngovern. The public is so confused and eclipsed that it\r\ncannot even use the organs through which it is supposed\r\nto mediate political action and polity.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe same lesson is taught by the breakdown of the\r\ntheory of the responsibility of elected representatives\r\nto the electorate, to say nothing of their alleged liability\r\nto be called before the bar of the private judgment of\r\nindividuals. It is at least suggestive that the terms\r\nof the theory are best met in legislation of the “pork-barrel”\r\ntype. There a representative may be called to\r\naccount for failure to meet local desire, or be rewarded\r\nfor pertinacity and success in fulfilling its\r\nwishes. But only rarely is the theory borne out in\r\nimportant matters, although occasionally it works.\r\nBut the instances are so infrequent that any skilled\r\npolitical observer could enumerate them by name.\r\nThe reason for the lack of personal liability to the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_122\"\u003e122\u003c/span\u003e\r\nelectorate is evident. The latter is composed of rather\r\namorphous groups. Their political ideas and beliefs\r\nare mostly in abeyance between elections. Even in\r\ntimes of political excitement, artificially accelerated,\r\ntheir opinions are moved collectively by the current\r\nof the group rather than by independent personal\r\njudgment. As a rule, what decides the fate of a person\r\nwho comes up for election is neither his political excellence\r\nnor his political defects. The current runs for\r\nor against the party in power and the individual candidate\r\nsinks or swims as runs the current. At times\r\nthere is a general consensus of sentiment, a definite\r\ntrend in favor of “progressive legislation” or a desire\r\nfor a “return to normalcy.” But even then only exceptional\r\ncandidates get by on any basis of personal\r\nresponsibility to the electorate. The “tidal wave”\r\nswamps some; the “landslide” carries others into office.\r\nAt other times, habit, party funds, the skill of managers\r\nof the machine, the portrait of a candidate with\r\nhis firm jaw, his lovely wife and children, and a multitude\r\nof other irrelevancies, determine the issue.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThese scattered comments are not made in the belief\r\nthat they convey any novel truth. Such things are\r\nfamiliar; they are the common-places of the political\r\nscene. They could be extended indefinitely by any\r\ncareful observer of the scene. The significant thing is\r\nthat familiarity has bred indifference if not contempt.\r\nIndifference is the evidence of current apathy, and\r\napathy is testimony to the fact that the public is\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_123\"\u003e123\u003c/span\u003e\r\nso bewildered that it cannot find itself. The remarks\r\nare not made with a view to drawing a conclusion.\r\nThey are offered with a view to outlining a problem:\r\nWhat is the public? If there is a public, what are the\r\nobstacles in the way of its recognizing and articulating\r\nitself? Is the public a myth? Or does it come into\r\nbeing only in periods of marked social transition when\r\ncrucial alternative issues stand out, such as that between\r\nthrowing one’s lot in with the conservation of\r\nestablished institutions or with forwarding new tendencies?\r\nIn a reaction against dynastic rule which has\r\ncome to be felt as despotically oppressive? In a transfer\r\nof social power from agrarian classes to industrial?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIs not the problem at the present time that of securing\r\nexperts to manage administrative matters, other\r\nthan the framing of policies? It may be urged that the\r\npresent confusion and apathy are due to the fact that\r\nthe real energy of society is now directed in all non-political\r\nmatters by trained specialists who manage\r\nthings, while politics are carried on with a machinery\r\nand ideas formed in the past to deal with quite another\r\nsort of situation. There is no particular public concerned\r\nin finding expert school instructors, competent\r\ndoctors, or business managers. Nothing called a public\r\nintervenes to instruct physicians in the practice of the\r\nhealing art or merchants in the art of salesmanship.\r\nThe conduct of these callings and others characteristic\r\nof our time are decided by science and pseudo-science.\r\nThe important governmental affairs at present, it may\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_124\"\u003e124\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbe argued, are also technically complicated matters to\r\nbe conducted properly by experts. And if at present\r\npeople are not educated to the recognition of the importance\r\nof finding experts and of entrusting administration\r\nto them, it may plausibly be asserted that the\r\nprime obstruction lies in the superstitious belief that\r\nthere is a public concerned to determine the formation\r\nand execution of general social policies. Perhaps the\r\napathy of the electorate is due to the irrelevant artificiality\r\nof the issues with which it is attempted to work\r\nup factitious excitement. Perhaps this artificiality is\r\nin turn mainly due to the survival of political beliefs\r\nand machinery from a period when science and technology\r\nwere so immature as not to permit of a definite\r\ntechnique for handling definite social situations and\r\nmeeting specific social needs. The attempt to decide by\r\nlaw that the legends of a primitive Hebrew people regarding\r\nthe genesis of man are more authoritative than\r\nthe results of scientific inquiry might be cited as a\r\ntypical example of the sort of thing which is bound to\r\nhappen when the accepted doctrine is that a public\r\norganized for political purposes, rather than experts\r\nguided by specialized inquiry, is the final umpire and\r\narbiter of issues.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe questions of most concern at present may be\r\nsaid to be matters like sanitation, public health, healthful\r\nand adequate housing, transportation, planning of\r\ncities, regulation and distribution of immigrants, selection\r\nand management of personnel, right methods of instruction\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_125\"\u003e125\u003c/span\u003e\r\nand preparation of competent teachers,\r\nscientific adjustment of taxation, efficient management\r\nof funds, and so on. These are technical matters, as\r\nmuch so as the construction of an efficient engine for\r\npurposes of traction or locomotion. Like it they\r\nare to be settled by inquiry into facts; and as the inquiry\r\ncan be carried on only by those especially\r\nequipped, so the results of inquiry can be utilized only\r\nby trained technicians. What has counting heads, decision\r\nby majority and the whole apparatus of traditional\r\ngovernment to do with such things? Given\r\nsuch considerations, and the public and its organization\r\nfor political ends is not only a ghost, but a ghost\r\nwhich walks and talks, and obscures, confuses and misleads\r\ngovernmental action in a disastrous way.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003ePersonally I am far from thinking that such considerations,\r\npertinent as they are to administrative\r\nactivities, cover the entire political field. They ignore\r\nforces which have to be composed and resolved before\r\ntechnical and specialized action can come into play.\r\nBut they aid in giving definiteness and point to a fundamental\r\nquestion: What, after all, is the public under\r\npresent conditions? What are the reasons for its\r\neclipse? What hinders it from finding and identifying\r\nitself? By what means shall its inchoate and amorphous\r\nestate be organized into effective political action\r\nrelevant to present social needs and opportunities?\r\nWhat has happened to the Public in the century and\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_126\"\u003e126\u003c/span\u003e\r\na half since the theory of political democracy was\r\nurged with such assurance and hope?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003ePrevious discussion has brought to light some conditions\r\nout of which the public is generated. It has also\r\nset forth some of the causes through which a “new age\r\nof human relationships” has been brought into being.\r\nThese two arguments form the premises which, when\r\nthey are related to each other, will provide our answer\r\nto the questions just raised. Indirect, extensive,\r\nenduring and serious consequences of conjoint and\r\ninteracting behavior call a public into existence having\r\na common interest in controlling these consequences.\r\nBut the machine age has so enormously expanded,\r\nmultiplied, intensified and complicated the\r\nscope of the indirect consequences, have formed such\r\nimmense and consolidated unions in action, on an impersonal\r\nrather than a community basis, that the\r\nresultant public cannot identify and distinguish itself.\r\nAnd this discovery is obviously an antecedent condition\r\nof any effective organization on its part. Such\r\nis our thesis regarding the eclipse which the public\r\nidea and interest have undergone. There are too many\r\npublics and too much of public concern for our existing\r\nresources to cope with. The problem of a democratically\r\norganized public is primarily and essentially\r\nan intellectual problem, in a degree to which the\r\npolitical affairs of prior ages offer no parallel.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eOur concern at this time is to state how it is that\r\nthe machine age in developing the Great Society\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_127\"\u003e127\u003c/span\u003e\r\nhas invaded and partially disintegrated the small communities\r\nof former times without generating a Great\r\nCommunity. The facts are familiar enough; our especial\r\naffair is to point out their connections with the\r\ndifficulties under which the organization of a democratic\r\npublic is laboring. For the very familiarity with the\r\nphenomena conceals their significance and blinds us to\r\ntheir relation to immediate political problems.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe scope of the Great War furnishes an urgent\r\nas well as convenient starting point for the discussion.\r\nThe extent of that war is unparalleled, because the conditions\r\ninvolved in it are so new. The dynastic conflicts\r\nof the seventeenth century are called by the same\r\nname: we have only one word, “war.” The sameness of\r\nthe word too easily conceals from us the difference in\r\nsignificance. We think of all wars as much the\r\nsame thing, only the last one was horrible beyond\r\nothers. Colonies were drawn in: self-governing ones\r\nentered voluntarily; possessions were levied upon for\r\ntroops; alliances were formed with remote countries\r\nin spite of diversities of race and culture, as in the\r\ncases of Great Britain and Japan, Germany and Turkey.\r\nLiterally every continent upon the globe was\r\ninvolved. Indirect effects were as broad as direct.\r\nNot merely soldiers, but finance, industry and opinion\r\nwere mobilized and consolidated. Neutrality was a\r\nprecarious affair. There was a critical epoch in the\r\nhistory of the world when the Roman Empire assembled\r\nin itself the lands and peoples of the Mediterranean\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_128\"\u003e128\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbasin. The World War stands out as an indubitable\r\nproof that what then happened for a region has now\r\nhappened for the world, only there is now no comprehensive\r\npolitical organization to include the various\r\ndivided yet interdependent countries. Any one who\r\neven partially visualizes the scene has a convincing reminder\r\nof the meaning of the Great Society: that it\r\nexists, and that it is not integrated.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eExtensive, enduring, intricate and serious indirect\r\nconsequences of the conjoint activity of a comparatively\r\nfew persons traverse the globe. The similes\r\nof the stone cast into the pool, ninepins in a row,\r\nthe spark which kindles a vast conflagration, are pale\r\nin comparison with the reality. The spread of the\r\nwar seemed like the movement of an uncontrolled\r\nnatural catastrophe. The consolidation of peoples in\r\nenclosed, nominally independent, national states has\r\nits counterpart in the fact that their acts affect\r\ngroups and individuals in other states all over the\r\nworld. The connections and ties which transferred\r\nenergies set in motion in one spot to all parts of the\r\nearth were not tangible and visible; they do not stand\r\nout as do politically bounded states. But the war\r\nis there to show that they are as real, and to prove that\r\nthey are not organized and regulated. It suggests\r\nthat existing political and legal forms and arrangements\r\nare incompetent to deal with the situation. For\r\nthe latter is the joint product of the existing constitution\r\nof the political state and the working of non-political\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_129\"\u003e129\u003c/span\u003e\r\nforces not adjusted to political forms. We cannot\r\nexpect the causes of a disease to combine effectually to\r\ncure the disease they create. The need is that the non-political\r\nforces organize themselves to transform existing\r\npolitical structures: that the divided and troubled\r\npublics integrate.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn general, the non-political forces are the expressions\r\nof a technological age injected into an\r\ninherited political scheme which operates to deflect\r\nand distort their normal operation. The industrial\r\nand commercial relations that created the situation\r\nof which the war is a manifestation are as evident in\r\nsmall things as great. They were exhibited, not only\r\nin the struggle for raw materials, for distant markets,\r\nand in staggering national debts, but in local and unimportant\r\nphenomena. Travelers finding themselves\r\naway from home could not get their letters of credit\r\ncashed even in countries not then at war. Stock-markets\r\nclosed on one hand, and profiteers piled up\r\ntheir millions on the other. One instance may be cited\r\nfrom domestic affairs. The plight of the farmer since\r\nthe war has created a domestic political issue. A great\r\ndemand was generated for food and other agricultural\r\nproducts; prices rose. In addition to this economic\r\nstimulus, farmers were objects of constant political\r\nexhortation to increase their crops. Inflation and\r\ntemporary prosperity followed. The end of active\r\nwarfare came. Impoverished countries could not buy\r\nand pay for foodstuffs up to even a pre-war level.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_130\"\u003e130\u003c/span\u003e\r\nTaxes were enormously increased. Currencies were depreciated;\r\nthe world’s gold supply centered here. The\r\nstimulus of war and of national extravagance piled\r\nup the inventories of factories and merchants. Wages\r\nand the prices of agricultural implements increased.\r\nWhen deflation came it found a restricted market,\r\nincreased costs of production, and farmers burdened\r\nwith mortgages lightly assumed during the period of\r\nfrenzied expansion.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis instance is not cited because it is peculiarly\r\nimportant in comparison with other consequences which\r\nhave happened, especially in Europe. It is relatively\r\ninsignificant by contrast with them, and in contrast\r\nwith the arousal of nationalistic sentiments which has\r\neverywhere taken place since the war in so-called backward\r\ncountries. But it shows the ramifying consequences\r\nof our intricate and interdependent economic\r\nrelations, and it shows how little prevision and regulation\r\nexist. The farming population could hardly have\r\nacted with knowledge of the consequences of the fundamental\r\nrelations in which they were implicated. They\r\ncould make a momentary and improvised response to\r\nthem, but they could not manage their affairs in controlled\r\nadaptation to the course of events. They present\r\nthemselves as hapless subjects of overwhelming\r\noperations with which they were hardly acquainted and\r\nover which they had no more control than over the\r\nvicissitudes of climate.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe illustration cannot be objected to on the ground\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_131\"\u003e131\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthat it rests upon the abnormal situation of war. The\r\nwar itself was a normal manifestation of the underlying\r\nunintegrated state of society. The local face-to-face\r\ncommunity has been invaded by forces so vast, so\r\nremote in initiation, so far-reaching in scope and so\r\ncomplexly indirect in operation, that they are, from\r\nthe standpoint of the members of local social units,\r\nunknown. Man, as has been often remarked, has difficulty\r\nin getting on either with or without his fellows,\r\neven in neighborhoods. He is not more successful in\r\ngetting on with them when they act at a great distance\r\nin ways invisible to him. An inchoate public is capable\r\nof organization only when indirect consequences are\r\nperceived, and when it is possible to project agencies\r\nwhich order their occurrence. At present, many consequences\r\nare felt rather than perceived; they are\r\nsuffered, but they cannot be said to be known, for they\r\nare not, by those who experience them, referred to their\r\norigins. It goes, then, without saying that agencies\r\nare not established which canalize the streams of\r\nsocial action and thereby regulate them. Hence the\r\npublics are amorphous and unarticulated.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere was a time when a man might entertain a few\r\ngeneral political principles and apply them with some\r\nconfidence. A citizen believed in states’ rights or in a\r\ncentralized federal government; in free trade or protection.\r\nIt did not involve much mental strain to\r\nimagine that by throwing in his lot with one party\r\nor another he could so express his views that his belief\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_132\"\u003e132\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwould count in government. For the average voter\r\nto-day the tariff question is a complicated medley of\r\ninfinite detail, schedules of rates specific and \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003ead valorem\u003c/i\u003e\r\non countless things, many of which he does not recognize\r\nby name, and with respect to which he can form\r\nno judgment. Probably not one voter in a thousand\r\neven reads the scores of pages in which the rates of\r\ntoll are enumerated and he would not be much wiser if\r\nhe did. The average man gives it up as a bad job.\r\nAt election time, appeal to some time-worn slogan may\r\ngalvanize him into a temporary notion that he has convictions\r\non an important subject, but except for manufacturers\r\nand dealers who have some interest at stake in\r\nthis or that schedule, belief lacks the qualities which\r\nattach to beliefs about matters of personal concern.\r\nIndustry is too complex and intricate.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAgain the voter may by personal predilection or\r\ninherited belief incline towards magnifying the scope of\r\nlocal governments and inveigh against the evils of centralization.\r\nBut he is vehemently sure of social\r\nevils attending the liquor traffic. He finds that the\r\nprohibitory law of his locality, township, county or\r\nstate, is largely nullified by the importation of liquor\r\nfrom outside, made easy by modern means of transportation.\r\nSo he becomes an advocate of a national\r\namendment giving the central government power to\r\nregulate the manufacture and sale of intoxicating\r\ndrinks. This brings in its train a necessary extension\r\nof federal officials and powers. Thus to-day, the south,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_133\"\u003e133\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe traditional home of the states’ rights doctrine, is\r\nthe chief supporter of national prohibition and\r\nVolstead Act. It would not be possible to say how\r\nmany voters have thought of the relation between their\r\nprofessed general principle and their special position\r\non the liquor question: probably not many. On the\r\nother hand, life-long Hamiltonians, proclaimers of the\r\ndangers of particularistic local autonomy, are opposed\r\nto prohibition. Hence they play a tune \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003ead hoc\u003c/i\u003e on the\r\nJeffersonian flute. Gibes at inconsistency are, however,\r\nas irrelevant as they are easy. The social situation\r\nhas been so changed by the factors of an industrial\r\nage that traditional general principles have little\r\npractical meaning. They persist as emotional cries\r\nrather than as reasoned ideas.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe same criss-crossing occurs with reference to\r\nregulation of railways. The opponent of a strong\r\nfederal government finds, being a farmer or shipper,\r\nthat rates are too high; he also finds that railways pay\r\nlittle attention to state boundaries, that lines once local\r\nare parts of vast systems and that state legislation and\r\nadministration are ineffectual for his purpose. He calls\r\nfor national regulation. Some partisan of the powers\r\nof the central government, on the other hand, being an\r\ninvestor in stocks and bonds, finds that his income is\r\nlikely to be unfavorably affected by federal action and\r\nhe promptly protests against the vexatious tendency to\r\nappeal to national aid, which has now become in his\r\neyes a foolish paternalism. The developments of industry\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_134\"\u003e134\u003c/span\u003e\r\nand commerce have so complicated affairs that\r\na clear-cut, generally applicable, standard of judgment\r\nbecomes practically impossible. The forest cannot be\r\nseen for the trees nor the trees for the forest.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eA striking example of the shift of the actual tenor\r\nof doctrines—that is, of their consequences in application—is\r\npresented in the history of the doctrine of\r\nIndividualism, interpreted to signify a minimum of\r\ngovernmental “interference” with industry and trade.\r\nAt the outset, it was held by “progressives,” by those\r\nwho were protesting against the inherited régime of\r\nrules of law and administration. Vested interests, on\r\nthe contrary, were mainly in favor of the old status.\r\nTo-day the industrial-property régime being established,\r\nthe doctrine is the intellectual bulwark of the\r\nstandpatter and reactionary. He it is that now wants\r\nto be let alone, and who utters the war-cry of liberty\r\nfor private industry, thrift, contract and their pecuniary\r\nfruit. In the United States the name “liberal,”\r\nas a party designation, is still employed to designate\r\na progressive in political matters. In most other countries,\r\nthe “liberal” party is that which represents established\r\nand vested commercial and financial interests\r\nin protest against governmental regulation. The irony\r\nof history is nowhere more evident than in the reversal\r\nof the practical meaning of the term “liberalism”\r\nin spite of a literal continuity of theory.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003ePolitical apathy, which is a natural product of the\r\ndiscrepancies between actual practices and traditional\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_135\"\u003e135\u003c/span\u003e\r\nmachinery, ensues from inability to identify one’s self\r\nwith definite issues. These are hard to find and locate\r\nin the vast complexities of current life. When traditional\r\nwar-cries have lost their import in practical\r\npolicies which are consonant with them, they are\r\nreadily dismissed as bunk. Only habit and tradition,\r\nrather than reasoned conviction, together with a vague\r\nfaith in doing one’s civic duty, send to the polls a\r\nconsiderable percentage of the fifty per cent. who still\r\nvote. And of them it is a common remark that a large\r\nnumber vote against something or somebody rather\r\nthan for anything or anybody, except when powerful\r\nagencies create a scare. The old principles do not\r\nfit contemporary life as it is lived, however well they\r\nmay have expressed the vital interests of the times in\r\nwhich they arose. Thousands feel their hollowness\r\neven if they cannot make their feeling articulate. The\r\nconfusion which has resulted from the size and ramifications\r\nof social activities has rendered men skeptical\r\nof the efficiency of political action. Who is sufficient\r\nunto these things? Men feel that they are\r\ncaught in the sweep of forces too vast to understand\r\nor master. Thought is brought to a standstill and\r\naction paralyzed. Even the specialist finds it difficult\r\nto trace the chain of “cause and effect”; and even he\r\noperates only after the event, looking backward, while\r\nmeantime social activities have moved on to effect a\r\nnew state of affairs.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eSimilar considerations account for depreciation\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_136\"\u003e136\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof the machinery of democratic political action in contrast\r\nwith a rising appreciation of the need of expert\r\nadministrators. For example, one of the by-products\r\nof the war was the investment of the government at\r\nMuscle Shoals for the manufacture of nitrogen, a chemical\r\nproduct of great importance to the farmer, as well\r\nas to armies in the field. The disposition and utilization\r\nof the plant have become matters of political dispute.\r\nThe questions involved, questions of science,\r\nagriculture, industry and finance, are highly technical.\r\nHow many voters are competent to measure all the\r\nfactors involved in arriving at a decision? And if they\r\nwere competent after studying it, how many have the\r\ntime to devote to it? It is true that this matter does\r\nnot come before the electorate directly, but the technical\r\ndifficulty of the problem is reflected in the confused\r\nparalysis of the legislators whose business it is to deal\r\nwith it. The confused situation is further complicated\r\nby the invention of other and cheaper methods of producing\r\nnitrates. Again, the rapid development of\r\nhydro-electric and super-power is a matter of public\r\nconcern. In the long run, few questions exceed it in\r\nimportance. Aside from business corporations which\r\nhave a direct interest in it and some engineers, how\r\nmany citizens have the data or the ability to secure\r\nand estimate the facts involved in its settlement? One\r\nfurther illustration: Two things which intimately concern\r\na local public are street-railway transportation\r\nand the marketing of food products. But the history\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_137\"\u003e137\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof municipal politics shows in most cases a flare-up of\r\nintense interest followed by a period of indifference.\r\nResults come home to the masses of the people. But\r\nthe very size, heterogeneity and nobility of urban populations,\r\nthe vast capital required, the technical character\r\nof the engineering problems involved, soon tire the\r\nattention of the average voter. I think the three instances\r\nare fairly typical. The ramification of the\r\nissues before the public is so wide and intricate, the\r\ntechnical matters involved are so specialized, the details\r\nare so many and so shifting, that the public cannot\r\nfor any length of time identify and hold itself.\r\nIt is not that there is no public, no large body of\r\npersons having a common interest in the consequences\r\nof social transactions. There is too much public, a\r\npublic too diffused and scattered and too intricate in\r\ncomposition. And there are too many publics, for conjoint\r\nactions which have indirect, serious and enduring\r\nconsequences are multitudinous beyond comparison,\r\nand each one of them crosses the others and generates\r\nits own group of persons especially affected with little\r\nto hold these different publics together in an integrated\r\nwhole.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe picture is not complete without taking into account\r\nthe many competitors with effective political interest.\r\nPolitical concerns have, of course, always had\r\nstrong rivals. Persons have always been, for the most\r\npart, taken up with their more immediate work and\r\nplay. The power of “bread and the circus” to divert\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_138\"\u003e138\u003c/span\u003e\r\nattention from public matters is an old story. But\r\nnow the industrial conditions which have enlarged,\r\ncomplicated and multiplied public interests have also\r\nmultiplied and intensified formidable rivals to them.\r\nIn countries where political life has been most successfully\r\nconducted in the past, there was a class\r\nspecially set aside, as it were, who made political affairs\r\ntheir special business. Aristotle could not conceive\r\na body of citizens competent to carry on politics consisting\r\nof others than those who had leisure, that is,\r\nof those who were relieved from all other preoccupations,\r\nespecially that of making a livelihood. Political\r\nlife, till recent times, bore out his belief. Those who\r\ntook an active part in politics were “gentlemen,” persons\r\nwho had had property and money long enough,\r\nand enough of it, so that its further pursuit was vulgar\r\nand beneath their station. To-day, so great and\r\npowerful is the sweep of the industrial current, the\r\nperson of leisure is usually an idle person. Persons\r\nhave their own business to attend to, and “business”\r\nhas its own precise and specialized meaning. Politics\r\nthus tends to become just another “business”: the especial\r\nconcern of bosses and the managers of the\r\nmachine.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe increase in the number, variety and cheapness of\r\namusements represents a powerful diversion from\r\npolitical concern. The members of an inchoate public\r\nhave too many ways of enjoyment, as well as of work,\r\nto give much thought to organization into an effective\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_139\"\u003e139\u003c/span\u003e\r\npublic. Man is a consuming and sportive animal as\r\nwell as a political one. What is significant is that\r\naccess to means of amusement has been rendered easy\r\nand cheap beyond anything known in the past. The\r\npresent era of “prosperity” may not be enduring. But\r\nthe movie, radio, cheap reading matter and motor car\r\nwith all they stand for have come to stay. That\r\nthey did not originate in deliberate desire to divert\r\nattention from political interests does not lessen their\r\neffectiveness in that direction. The political elements\r\nin the constitution of the human being, those having\r\nto do with citizenship, are crowded to one side. In\r\nmost circles it is hard work to sustain conversation\r\non a political theme; and once initiated, it is quickly\r\ndismissed with a yawn. Let there be introduced the\r\ntopic of the mechanism and accomplishment of various\r\nmakes of motor cars or the respective merits of actresses,\r\nand the dialogue goes on at a lively pace. The\r\nthing to be remembered is that this cheapened and\r\nmultiplied access to amusement is the product of the\r\nmachine age, intensified by the business tradition which\r\ncauses provision of means for an enjoyable passing of\r\ntime to be one of the most profitable of occupations.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eOne phase of the workings of a technological age,\r\nwith its unprecedented command of natural energies,\r\nwhile it is implied in what has been said, needs explicit\r\nattention. The older publics, in being local communities,\r\nlargely homogeneous with one another, were also,\r\nas the phrase goes, static. They changed, of course,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_140\"\u003e140\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbut barring war, catastrophe and great migrations,\r\nthe modifications were gradual. They proceeded slowly\r\nand were largely unperceived by those undergoing\r\nthem. The newer forces have created mobile and fluctuating\r\nassociational forms. The common complaints of\r\nthe disintegration of family life may be placed in evidence.\r\nThe movement from rural to urban assemblies\r\nis also the result and proof of this mobility. Nothing\r\nstays long put, not even the associations by which\r\nbusiness and industry are carried on. The mania for\r\nmotion and speed is a symptom of the restless instability\r\nof social life, and it operates to intensify the\r\ncauses from which it springs. Steel replaces wood\r\nand masonry for buildings; ferro-concrete modifies\r\nsteel, and some invention may work a further revolution.\r\nMuscle Shoals was acquired to produce nitrogen,\r\nand new methods have already made antiquated the\r\nsupposed need of great accumulation of water power.\r\nAny selected illustration suffers because of the heterogeneous\r\nmass of cases to select from. How can a\r\npublic be organized, we may ask, when literally it does\r\nnot stay in place? Only deep issues or those which\r\ncan be made to appear such can find a common denominator\r\namong all the shifting and unstable relationships.\r\nAttachment is a very different function\r\nof life from affection. Affections will continue\r\nas long as the heart beats. But attachment requires\r\nsomething more than organic causes. The very\r\nthings which stimulate and intensify affections may\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_141\"\u003e141\u003c/span\u003e\r\nundermine attachments. For these are bred in tranquil\r\nstability; they are nourished in constant relationships.\r\nAcceleration of mobility disturbs them at their root.\r\nAnd without abiding attachments associations are too\r\nshifting and shaken to permit a public readily to locate\r\nand identify itself.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe new era of human relationships in which we\r\nlive is one marked by mass production for remote markets,\r\nby cable and telephone, by cheap printing, by\r\nrailway and steam navigation. Only geographically\r\ndid Columbus discover a new world. The actual new\r\nworld has been generated in the last hundred years.\r\nSteam and electricity have done more to alter the conditions\r\nunder which men associate together than all\r\nthe agencies which affected human relationships before\r\nour time. There are those who lay the blame for all\r\nthe evils of our lives on steam, electricity and machinery.\r\nIt is always convenient to have a devil as well as a\r\nsavior to bear the responsibilities of humanity. In\r\nreality, the trouble springs rather from the ideas and\r\nabsence of ideas in connection with which technological\r\nfactors operate. Mental and moral beliefs and ideals\r\nchange more slowly than outward conditions. If the\r\nideals associated with the higher life of our cultural\r\npast have been impaired, the fault is primarily with\r\nthem. Ideals and standards formed without regard\r\nto the means by which they are to be achieved and incarnated\r\nin flesh are bound to be thin and wavering.\r\nSince the aims, desires and purposes created by a\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_142\"\u003e142\u003c/span\u003e\r\nmachine age do not connect with tradition, there are\r\ntwo sets of rival ideals, and those which have actual instrumentalities\r\nat their disposal have the advantage.\r\nBecause the two are rivals and because the older ones\r\nretain their glamor and sentimental prestige in literature\r\nand religion, the newer ones are perforce harsh\r\nand narrow. For the older symbols of ideal life still\r\nengage thought and command loyalty. Conditions\r\nhave changed, but every aspect of life, from religion\r\nand education to property and trade, shows that nothing\r\napproaching a transformation has taken place in\r\nideas and ideals. Symbols control sentiment and\r\nthought, and the new age has no symbols consonant\r\nwith its activities. Intellectual instrumentalities\r\nfor the formation of an organized public are more inadequate\r\nthan its overt means. The ties which hold\r\nmen together in action are numerous, tough and subtle.\r\nBut they are invisible and intangible. We have the\r\nphysical tools of communication as never before. The\r\nthoughts and aspirations congruous with them are not\r\ncommunicated, and hence are not common. Without\r\nsuch communication the public will remain shadowy\r\nand formless, seeking spasmodically for itself, but seizing\r\nand holding its shadow rather than its substance.\r\nTill the Great Society is converted into a Great Community,\r\nthe Public will remain in eclipse. Communication\r\ncan alone create a great community. Our Babel is\r\nnot one of tongues but of the signs and symbols without\r\nwhich shared experience is impossible.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap x-ebookmaker-drop\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_143\"\u003e143\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch2 class=\"nobreak\" id=\"toclink_143\"\u003eCHAPTER V\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cspan class=\"subhead\"\u003eSEARCH FOR THE GREAT COMMUNITY\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe have had occasion to refer in passing to the distinction\r\nbetween democracy as a social idea and\r\npolitical democracy as a system of government. The\r\ntwo are, of course, connected. The idea remains barren\r\nand empty save as it is incarnated in human relationships.\r\nYet in discussion they must be distinguished.\r\nThe idea of democracy is a wider and fuller idea than\r\ncan be exemplified in the state even at its best. To be\r\nrealized it must affect all modes of human association,\r\nthe family, the school, industry, religion. And even\r\nas far as political arrangements are concerned, governmental\r\ninstitutions are but a mechanism for securing\r\nto an idea channels of effective operation. It will\r\nhardly do to say that criticisms of the political machinery\r\nleave the believer in the idea untouched. For, as\r\nfar as they are justified—and no candid believer can\r\ndeny that many of them are only too well grounded—they\r\narouse him to bestir himself in order that the\r\nidea may find a more adequate machinery through\r\nwhich to work. What the faithful insist upon, however,\r\nis that the idea and its external organs and structures\r\nare not to be identified. We object to the common supposition\r\nof the foes of existing democratic government\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_144\"\u003e144\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthat the accusations against it touch the social and\r\nmoral aspirations and ideas which underlie the political\r\nforms. The old saying that the cure for the ills of\r\ndemocracy is more democracy is not apt if it means\r\nthat the evils may be remedied by introducing more\r\nmachinery of the same kind as that which already\r\nexists, or by refining and perfecting that machinery.\r\nBut the phrase may also indicate the need of returning\r\nto the idea itself, of clarifying and deepening our\r\napprehension of it, and of employing our sense of its\r\nmeaning to criticize and re-make its political manifestations.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eConfining ourselves, for the moment, to political\r\ndemocracy, we must, in any case, renew our protest\r\nagainst the assumption that the idea has itself produced\r\nthe governmental practices which obtain in democratic\r\nstates: General suffrage, elected representatives,\r\nmajority rule, and so on. The idea has influenced the\r\nconcrete political movement, but it has not caused it.\r\nThe transition from family and dynastic government\r\nsupported by the loyalties of tradition to popular government\r\nwas the outcome primarily of technological discoveries\r\nand inventions working a change in the customs\r\nby which men had been bound together. It was\r\nnot due to the doctrines of doctrinaires. The forms\r\nto which we are accustomed in democratic governments\r\nrepresent the cumulative effect of a multitude of events,\r\nunpremeditated as far as political effects were concerned\r\nand having unpredictable consequences. There\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_145\"\u003e145\u003c/span\u003e\r\nis no sanctity in universal suffrage, frequent elections,\r\nmajority rule, congressional and cabinet government.\r\nThese things are devices evolved in the direction in\r\nwhich the current was moving, each wave of which involved\r\nat the time of its impulsion a minimum of departure\r\nfrom antecedent custom and law. The devices\r\nserved a purpose; but the purpose was rather that\r\nof meeting existing needs which had become too intense\r\nto be ignored, than that of forwarding the democratic\r\nidea. In spite of all defects, they served their\r\nown purpose well.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eLooking back, with the aid which \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003eex post facto\u003c/i\u003e\r\nexperience can give, it would be hard for the wisest\r\nto devise schemes which, under the circumstances, would\r\nhave met the needs better. In this retrospective glance,\r\nit is possible, however, to see how the doctrinal formulations\r\nwhich accompanied them were inadequate, one-sided\r\nand positively erroneous. In fact they were\r\nhardly more than political war-cries adopted to help\r\nin carrying on some immediate agitation or in justifying\r\nsome particular practical polity struggling for\r\nrecognition, even though they were asserted to be absolute\r\ntruths of human nature or of morals. The doctrines\r\nserved a particular local pragmatic need. But often\r\ntheir very adaptation to immediate circumstances unfitted\r\nthem, pragmatically, to meet more enduring and\r\nmore extensive needs. They lived to cumber the\r\npolitical ground, obstructing progress, all the more so\r\nbecause they were uttered and held not as hypotheses\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_146\"\u003e146\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwith which to direct social experimentation but as final\r\ntruths, dogmas. No wonder they call urgently for revision\r\nand displacement.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eNevertheless the current has set steadily in one direction:\r\ntoward democratic forms. That government\r\nexists to serve its community, and that this purpose\r\ncannot be achieved unless the community itself shares\r\nin selecting its governors and determining their policies,\r\nare a deposit of fact left, as far as we can see, permanently\r\nin the wake of doctrines and forms, however\r\ntransitory the latter. They are not the whole of the\r\ndemocratic idea, but they express it in its political\r\nphase. Belief in this political aspect is not a mystic\r\nfaith as if in some overruling providence that cares for\r\nchildren, drunkards and others unable to help themselves.\r\nIt marks a well-attested conclusion from historic\r\nfacts. We have every reason to think that whatever\r\nchanges may take place in existing democratic\r\nmachinery, they will be of a sort to make the interest\r\nof the public a more supreme guide and criterion of\r\ngovernmental activity, and to enable the public to\r\nform and manifest its purposes still more authoritatively.\r\nIn this sense the cure for the ailments of\r\ndemocracy is more democracy. The prime difficulty,\r\nas we have seen, is that of discovering the means by\r\nwhich a scattered, mobile and manifold public may so\r\nrecognize itself as to define and express its interests.\r\nThis discovery is necessarily precedent to any fundamental\r\nchange in the machinery. We are not concerned\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_147\"\u003e147\u003c/span\u003e\r\ntherefore to set forth counsels as to advisable\r\nimprovements in the political forms of democracy.\r\nMany have been suggested. It is no derogation of\r\ntheir relative worth to say that consideration of\r\nthese changes is not at present an affair of primary\r\nimportance. The problem lies deeper; it is in the first\r\ninstance an intellectual problem: the search for conditions\r\nunder which the Great Society may become the\r\nGreat Community. When these conditions are brought\r\ninto being they will make their own forms. Until\r\nthey have come about, it is somewhat futile to consider\r\nwhat political machinery will suit them.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn a search for the conditions under which the inchoate\r\npublic now extant may function democratically,\r\nwe may proceed from a statement of the nature of\r\nthe democratic idea in its generic social sense.\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_11\" href=\"#Footnote_11\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e11\u003c/a\u003e From\r\nthe standpoint of the individual, it consists in having a\r\nresponsible share according to capacity in forming and\r\ndirecting the activities of the groups to which one\r\nbelongs and in participating according to need in the\r\nvalues which the groups sustain. From the standpoint\r\nof the groups, it demands liberation of the potentialities\r\nof members of a group in harmony with the interests\r\nand goods which are common. Since every individual is\r\na member of many groups, this specification cannot be\r\nfulfilled except when different groups interact flexibly\r\nand fully in connection with other groups. A member\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_148\"\u003e148\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof a robber band may express his powers in a way consonant\r\nwith belonging to that group and be directed\r\nby the interest common to its members. But he does\r\nso only at the cost of repression of those of his potentialities\r\nwhich can be realized only through membership\r\nin other groups. The robber band cannot interact\r\nflexibly with other groups; it can act only through\r\nisolating itself. It must prevent the operation of all\r\ninterests save those which circumscribe it in its separateness.\r\nBut a good citizen finds his conduct as a\r\nmember of a political group enriching and enriched\r\nby his participation in family life, industry, scientific\r\nand artistic associations. There is a free give-and-take:\r\nfullness of integrated personality is therefore possible\r\nof achievement, since the pulls and responses of\r\ndifferent groups reënforce one another and their values\r\naccord.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eRegarded as an idea, democracy is not an alternative\r\nto other principles of associated life. It is the idea\r\nof community life itself. It is an ideal in the only intelligible\r\nsense of an ideal: namely, the tendency and\r\nmovement of some thing which exists carried to its\r\nfinal limit, viewed as completed, perfected. Since\r\nthings do not attain such fulfillment but are in actuality\r\ndistracted and interfered with, democracy in this\r\nsense is not a fact and never will be. But neither in\r\nthis sense is there or has there ever been anything which\r\nis a community in its full measure, a community unalloyed\r\nby alien elements. The idea or ideal of a community\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_149\"\u003e149\u003c/span\u003e\r\npresents, however, actual phases of associated\r\nlife as they are freed from restrictive and disturbing\r\nelements, and are contemplated as having attained\r\ntheir limit of development. Wherever there is conjoint\r\nactivity whose consequences are appreciated as good\r\nby all singular persons who take part in it, and where\r\nthe realization of the good is such as to effect an energetic\r\ndesire and effort to sustain it in being just because\r\nit is a good shared by all, there is in so far\r\na community. The clear consciousness of a communal\r\nlife, in all its implications, constitutes the idea of\r\ndemocracy.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eOnly when we start from a community as a fact,\r\ngrasp the fact in thought so as to clarify and enhance\r\nits constituent elements, can we reach an idea\r\nof democracy which is not utopian. The conceptions\r\nand shibboleths which are traditionally associated with\r\nthe idea of democracy take on a veridical and directive\r\nmeaning only when they are construed as marks and\r\ntraits of an association which realizes the defining characteristics\r\nof a community. Fraternity, liberty and\r\nequality isolated from communal life are hopeless abstractions.\r\nTheir separate assertion leads to mushy\r\nsentimentalism or else to extravagant and fanatical\r\nviolence which in the end defeats its own aims. Equality\r\nthen becomes a creed of mechanical identity which\r\nis false to facts and impossible of realization. Effort\r\nto attain it is divisive of the vital bonds which hold\r\nmen together; as far as it puts forth issue, the outcome\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_150\"\u003e150\u003c/span\u003e\r\nis a mediocrity in which good is common only in the\r\nsense of being average and vulgar. Liberty is then\r\nthought of as independence of social ties, and ends in\r\ndissolution and anarchy. It is more difficult to sever\r\nthe idea of brotherhood from that of a community,\r\nand hence it is either practically ignored in the movements\r\nwhich identify democracy with Individualism,\r\nor else it is a sentimentally appended tag. In its just\r\nconnection with communal experience, fraternity is\r\nanother name for the consciously appreciated goods\r\nwhich accrue from an association in which all share, and\r\nwhich give direction to the conduct of each. Liberty\r\nis that secure release and fulfillment of personal potentialities\r\nwhich take place only in rich and manifold\r\nassociation with others: the power to be an individualized\r\nself making a distinctive contribution and enjoying\r\nin its own way the fruits of association. Equality\r\ndenotes the unhampered share which each individual\r\nmember of the community has in the consequences of\r\nassociated action. It is equitable because it is measured\r\nonly by need and capacity to utilize, not by extraneous\r\nfactors which deprive one in order that another may\r\ntake and have. A baby in the family is equal with\r\nothers, not because of some antecedent and structural\r\nquality which is the same as that of others, but in so\r\nfar as his needs for care and development are attended\r\nto without being sacrificed to the superior strength,\r\npossessions and matured abilities of others. Equality\r\ndoes not signify that kind of mathematical or physical\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_151\"\u003e151\u003c/span\u003e\r\nequivalence in virtue of which any one element may be\r\nsubstituted for another. It denotes effective regard\r\nfor whatever is distinctive and unique in each, irrespective\r\nof physical and psychological inequalities. It is\r\nnot a natural possession but is a fruit of the community\r\nwhen its action is directed by its character as a community.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAssociated or joint activity is a condition of the\r\ncreation of a community. But association itself is\r\nphysical and organic, while communal life is moral,\r\nthat is emotionally, intellectually, consciously sustained.\r\nHuman beings combine in behavior as directly and unconsciously\r\nas do atoms, stellar masses and cells; as\r\ndirectly and unknowingly as they divide and repel.\r\nThey do so in virtue of their own structure, as\r\nman and woman unite, as the baby seeks the breast and\r\nthe breast is there to supply its need. They do so\r\nfrom external circumstances, pressure from without,\r\nas atoms combine or separate in presence of an electric\r\ncharge, or as sheep huddle together from the cold.\r\nAssociated activity needs no explanation; things are\r\nmade that way. But no amount of aggregated collective\r\naction of itself constitutes a community. For\r\nbeings who observe and think, and whose ideas are\r\nabsorbed by impulses and become sentiments and interests,\r\n“we” is as inevitable as “I.” But “we” and\r\n“our” exist only when the consequences of combined\r\naction are perceived and become an object of desire\r\nand effort, just as “I” and “mine” appear on the scene\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_152\"\u003e152\u003c/span\u003e\r\nonly when a distinctive share in mutual action is consciously\r\nasserted or claimed. Human associations may\r\nbe ever so organic in origin and firm in operation, but\r\nthey develop into societies in a human sense only as\r\ntheir consequences, being known, are esteemed and\r\nsought for. Even if “society” were as much an organism\r\nas some writers have held, it would not on that account\r\nbe society. Interactions, transactions, occur \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003ede\r\nfacto\u003c/i\u003e and the results of interdependence follow. But\r\nparticipation in activities and sharing in results are\r\nadditive concerns. They demand \u003cem\u003ecommunication\u003c/em\u003e as a\r\nprerequisite.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eCombined activity happens among human beings; but\r\nwhen nothing else happens it passes as inevitably\r\ninto some other mode of interconnected activity as\r\ndoes the interplay of iron and the oxygen of water.\r\nWhat takes place is wholly describable in terms of energy,\r\nor, as we say in the case of human interactions,\r\nof force. Only when there exist \u003cem\u003esigns\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003esymbols\u003c/em\u003e of\r\nactivities and of their outcome can the flux be viewed\r\nas from without, be arrested for consideration and\r\nesteem, and be regulated. Lightning strikes and rives\r\na tree or rock, and the resulting fragments take up\r\nand continue the process of interaction, and so on and\r\non. But when phases of the process are represented by\r\nsigns, a new medium is interposed. As symbols are related\r\nto one another, the important relations of a\r\ncourse of events are recorded and are preserved as\r\nmeanings. Recollection and foresight are possible; the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_153\"\u003e153\u003c/span\u003e\r\nnew medium facilitates calculation, planning, and a\r\nnew kind of action which intervenes in what happens\r\nto direct its course in the interest of what is foreseen\r\nand desired.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eSymbols in turn depend upon and promote communication.\r\nThe results of conjoint experience\r\nare considered and transmitted. Events cannot be\r\npassed from one to another, but meanings may be\r\nshared by means of signs. Wants and impulses are then\r\nattached to common meanings. They are thereby transformed\r\ninto desires and purposes, which, since they\r\nimplicate a common or mutually understood meaning,\r\npresent new ties, converting a conjoint activity into a\r\ncommunity of interest and endeavor. Thus there is\r\ngenerated what, metaphorically, may be termed a general\r\nwill and social consciousness: desire and choice on\r\nthe part of individuals in behalf of activities that,\r\nby means of symbols, are communicable and shared\r\nby all concerned. A community thus presents an\r\norder of energies transmuted into one of meanings\r\nwhich are appreciated and mutually referred by each\r\nto every other on the part of those engaged in combined\r\naction. “Force” is not eliminated but is transformed\r\nin use and direction by ideas and sentiments\r\nmade possible by means of symbols.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe work of conversion of the physical and organic\r\nphase of associated behavior into a community of\r\naction saturated and regulated by mutual interest in\r\nshared meanings, consequences which are translated\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_154\"\u003e154\u003c/span\u003e\r\ninto ideas and desired objects by means of symbols,\r\ndoes not occur all at once nor completely. At any\r\ngiven time, it sets a problem rather than marks a\r\nsettled achievement. We are born organic beings\r\nassociated with others, but we are not born members of\r\na community. The young have to be brought within the\r\ntraditions, outlook and interests which characterize\r\na community by means of education: by unremitting\r\ninstruction and by learning in connection with the\r\nphenomena of overt association. Everything which\r\nis distinctively human is learned, not native, even\r\nthough it could not be learned without native structures\r\nwhich mark man off from other animals. To\r\nlearn in a human way and to human effect is not just\r\nto acquire added skill through refinement of original\r\ncapacities.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eTo learn to be human is to develop through the give-and-take\r\nof communication an effective sense of being\r\nan individually distinctive member of a community;\r\none who understands and appreciates its beliefs, desires\r\nand methods, and who contributes to a further conversion\r\nof organic powers into human resources and\r\nvalues. But this translation is never finished. The\r\nold Adam, the unregenerate element in human nature,\r\npersists. It shows itself wherever the method obtains\r\nof attaining results by use of force instead of by the\r\nmethod of communication and enlightenment. It manifests\r\nitself more subtly, pervasively and effectually\r\nwhen knowledge and the instrumentalities of skill which\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_155\"\u003e155\u003c/span\u003e\r\nare the product of communal life are employed in the\r\nservice of wants and impulses which have not themselves\r\nbeen modified by reference to a shared interest. To the\r\ndoctrine of “natural” economy which held that commercial\r\nexchange would bring about such an interdependence\r\nthat harmony would automatically result, Rousseau\r\ngave an adequate answer in advance. He pointed\r\nout that interdependence provides just the situation\r\nwhich makes it possible and worth while for the stronger\r\nand abler to exploit others for their own ends, to keep\r\nothers in a state of subjection where they can be utilized\r\nas animated tools. The remedy he suggested, a return\r\nto a condition of independence based on isolation, was\r\nhardly seriously meant. But its desperateness is evidence\r\nof the urgency of the problem. Its negative\r\ncharacter was equivalent to surrender of any hope\r\nof solution. By contrast it indicates the nature of the\r\nonly possible solution: the perfecting of the means\r\nand ways of communication of meanings so that genuinely\r\nshared interest in the consequences of interdependent\r\nactivities may inform desire and effort and\r\nthereby direct action.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis is the meaning of the statement that the problem\r\nis a moral one dependent upon intelligence and education.\r\nWe have in our prior account sufficiently emphasized\r\nthe rôle of technological and industrial factors\r\nin creating the Great Society. What was said may\r\neven have seemed to imply acceptance of the deterministic\r\nversion of an economic interpretation of history\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_156\"\u003e156\u003c/span\u003e\r\nand institutions. It is silly and futile to ignore and deny\r\neconomic facts. They do not cease to operate because\r\nwe refuse to note them, or because we smear them over\r\nwith sentimental idealizations. As we have also noted,\r\nthey generate as their result overt and external conditions\r\nof action and these are known with various degrees\r\nof adequacy. What actually happens in consequence\r\nof industrial forces is dependent upon the presence\r\nor absence of perception and communication of consequences,\r\nupon foresight and its effect upon desire and\r\nendeavor. Economic agencies produce one result when\r\nthey are left to work themselves out on the merely\r\nphysical level, or on that level modified only as the knowledge,\r\nskill and technique which the community has\r\naccumulated are transmitted to its members unequally\r\nand by chance. They have a different outcome in the\r\ndegree in which knowledge of consequences is equitably\r\ndistributed, and action is animated by an informed\r\nand lively sense of a shared interest. The doctrine of\r\neconomic interpretation as usually stated ignores the\r\ntransformation which meanings may effect; it passes\r\nover the new medium which communication may interpose\r\nbetween industry and its eventual consequences.\r\nIt is obsessed by the illusion which vitiated the\r\n“natural economy”: an illusion due to failure to note\r\nthe difference made in action by perception and publication\r\nof its consequences, actual and possible. It\r\nthinks in terms of antecedents, not of the eventual; of\r\norigins, not fruits.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_157\"\u003e157\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe have returned, through this apparent excursion,\r\nto the question in which our earlier discussion culminated:\r\nWhat are the conditions under which it is possible\r\nfor the Great Society to approach more closely\r\nand vitally the status of a Great Community, and thus\r\ntake form in genuinely democratic societies and state?\r\nWhat are the conditions under which we may reasonably\r\npicture the Public emerging from its eclipse?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe study will be an intellectual or hypothetical one.\r\nThere will be no attempt to state how the required\r\nconditions might come into existence, nor to prophesy\r\nthat they will occur. The object of the analysis will\r\nbe to show that \u003cem\u003eunless\u003c/em\u003e ascertained specifications are\r\nrealized, the Community cannot be organized as a democratically\r\neffective Public. It is not claimed that the\r\nconditions which will be noted will suffice, but only\r\nthat at least they are indispensable. In other words, we\r\nshall endeavor to frame a hypothesis regarding the\r\ndemocratic state to stand in contrast with the earlier\r\ndoctrine which has been nullified by the course of events.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eTwo essential constituents in that older theory, as\r\nwill be recalled, were the notions that each individual\r\nis of himself equipped with the intelligence needed,\r\nunder the operation of self-interest, to engage in\r\npolitical affairs; and that general suffrage, frequent\r\nelections of officials and majority rule are sufficient to\r\nensure the responsibility of elected rulers to the desires\r\nand interests of the public. As we shall see, the second\r\nconception is logically bound up with the first and stands\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_158\"\u003e158\u003c/span\u003e\r\nor falls with it. At the basis of the scheme lies what\r\nLippmann has well called the idea of the “omni-competent”\r\nindividual: competent to frame policies, to\r\njudge their results; competent to know in all situations\r\ndemanding political action what is for his own good,\r\nand competent to enforce his idea of good and the\r\nwill to effect it against contrary forces. Subsequent\r\nhistory has proved that the assumption involved illusion.\r\nHad it not been for the misleading influence of a\r\nfalse psychology, the illusion might have been detected\r\nin advance. But current philosophy held that ideas\r\nand knowledge were functions of a mind or consciousness\r\nwhich originated in individuals by means of\r\nisolated contact with objects. But in fact, knowledge is\r\na function of association and communication; it depends\r\nupon tradition, upon tools and methods socially\r\ntransmitted, developed and sanctioned. Faculties of effectual\r\nobservation, reflection and desire are habits acquired\r\nunder the influence of the culture and institutions\r\nof society, not ready-made inherent powers.\r\nThe fact that man acts from crudely intelligized emotion\r\nand from habit rather than from rational consideration,\r\nis now so familiar that it is not easy to\r\nappreciate that the other idea was taken seriously as\r\nthe basis of economic and political philosophy. The\r\nmeasure of truth which it contains was derived from\r\nobservation of a relatively small group of shrewd business\r\nmen who regulated their enterprises by calculation\r\nand accounting, and of citizens of small and stable\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_159\"\u003e159\u003c/span\u003e\r\nlocal communities who were so intimately acquainted\r\nwith the persons and affairs of their locality that they\r\ncould pass competent judgment upon the bearing of\r\nproposed measures upon their own concerns.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eHabit is the mainspring of human action, and habits\r\nare formed for the most part under the influence of the\r\ncustoms of a group. The organic structure of man\r\nentails the formation of habit, for, whether we wish\r\nit or not, whether we are aware of it or not, every\r\nact effects a modification of attitude and set which\r\ndirects future behavior. The dependence of habit-forming\r\nupon those habits of a group which constitute\r\ncustoms and institutions is a natural consequence of\r\nthe helplessness of infancy. The social consequences of\r\nhabit have been stated once for all by James: “Habit is\r\nthe enormous fly-wheel of society, its most precious conservative\r\ninfluence. It alone is what keeps us within\r\nthe bounds of ordinance, and saves the children of\r\nfortune from the uprisings of the poor. It alone prevents\r\nthe hardest and most repulsive walks of life from\r\nbeing deserted by those brought up to tread therein.\r\nIt keeps the fisherman and the deck-hand at sea through\r\nthe winter; it holds the miner in his darkness, and\r\nnails the country-man to his log cabin and his lonely\r\nfarm through all the months of snow; it protects us\r\nfrom invasion by the natives of the desert and the\r\nfrozen zone. It dooms us all to fight out the battle\r\nof life upon the lines of our nurture or our early choice,\r\nand to make the best of a pursuit that disagrees, because\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_160\"\u003e160\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthere is no other for which we are fitted and it\r\nis too late to begin again. It keeps different social\r\nstrata from mixing.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe influence of habit is decisive because all distinctively\r\nhuman action has to be learned, and the\r\nvery heart, blood and sinews of learning is creation of\r\nhabitudes. Habits bind us to orderly and established\r\nways of action because they generate ease, skill and\r\ninterest in things to which we have grown used and because\r\nthey instigate fear to walk in different ways, and\r\nbecause they leave us incapacitated for the trial of\r\nthem. Habit does not preclude the use of thought, but\r\nit determines the channels within which it operates.\r\nThinking is secreted in the interstices of habits. The\r\nsailor, miner, fisherman and farmer think, but their\r\nthoughts fall within the framework of accustomed occupations\r\nand relationships. We dream beyond the\r\nlimits of use and wont, but only rarely does revery become\r\na source of acts which break bounds; so rarely\r\nthat we name those in whom it happens demonic\r\ngeniuses and marvel at the spectacle. Thinking itself\r\nbecomes habitual along certain lines; a specialized occupation.\r\nScientific men, philosophers, literary persons,\r\nare not men and women who have so broken the bonds\r\nof habits that pure reason and emotion undefiled by use\r\nand wont speak through them. They are persons of a\r\nspecialized infrequent habit. Hence the idea that men\r\nare moved by an intelligent and calculated regard for\r\ntheir own good is pure mythology. Even if the principle\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_161\"\u003e161\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof self-love actuated behavior, it would still be\r\ntrue that the \u003cem\u003eobjects\u003c/em\u003e in which men find their love manifested,\r\nthe objects which they take as constituting their\r\npeculiar interests, are set by habits reflecting social\r\ncustoms.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThese facts explain why the social doctrinaires of\r\nthe new industrial movement had so little prescience\r\nof what was to follow in consequence of it. These facts\r\nexplain why the more things changed, the more they\r\nwere the same; they account, that is, for the fact that\r\ninstead of the sweeping revolution which was expected\r\nto result from democratic political machinery, there\r\nwas in the main but a transfer of vested power from\r\none class to another. A few men, whether or not they\r\nwere good judges of their own true interest and good,\r\nwere competent judges of the conduct of business for\r\npecuniary profit, and of how the new governmental\r\nmachinery could be made to serve their ends. It would\r\nhave taken a new race of human beings to escape, in\r\nthe use made of political forms, from the influence of\r\ndeeply engrained habits, of old institutions and customary\r\nsocial status, with their inwrought limitations\r\nof expectation, desire and demand. And such a race,\r\nunless of disembodied angelic constitution, would simply\r\nhave taken up the task where human beings assumed\r\nit upon emergence from the condition of anthropoid\r\napes. In spite of sudden and catastrophic revolutions,\r\nthe essential continuity of history is doubly guaranteed.\r\nNot only are personal desire and belief functions\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_162\"\u003e162\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof habit and custom, but the objective conditions\r\nwhich provide the resources and tools of action, together\r\nwith its limitations, obstructions and traps, are precipitates\r\nof the past, perpetuating, willy-nilly, its hold\r\nand power. The creation of a \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003etabula rasa\u003c/i\u003e in order to\r\npermit the creation of a new order is so impossible as\r\nto set at naught both the hope of buoyant revolutionaries\r\nand the timidity of scared conservatives.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eNevertheless, changes take place and are cumulative\r\nin character. Observation of them in the light of their\r\nrecognized consequences arouses reflection, discovery,\r\ninvention, experimentation. When a certain state of\r\naccumulated knowledge, of techniques and instrumentalities\r\nis attained, the process of change is so accelerated,\r\nthat, as to-day, it appears externally to be the dominant\r\ntrait. But there is a marked lag in any corresponding\r\nchange of ideas and desires. Habits of\r\nopinion are the toughest of all habits; when they have\r\nbecome second nature, and are supposedly thrown out\r\nof the door, they creep in again as stealthily and\r\nsurely as does first nature. And as they are modified,\r\nthe alteration first shows itself negatively, in the\r\ndisintegration of old beliefs, to be replaced by\r\nfloating, volatile and accidentally snatched up opinions.\r\nOf course there has been an enormous increase\r\nin the amount of knowledge possessed by mankind, but\r\nit does not equal, probably, the increase in the amount\r\nof errors and half-truths which have got into circulation.\r\nIn social and human matters, especially, the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_163\"\u003e163\u003c/span\u003e\r\ndevelopment of a critical sense and methods of discriminating\r\njudgment has not kept pace with the\r\ngrowth of careless reports and of motives for positive\r\nmisrepresentation.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat is more important, however, is that so much\r\nof knowledge is not knowledge in the ordinary sense\r\nof the word, but is “science.” The quotation marks\r\nare not used disrespectfully, but to suggest the technical\r\ncharacter of scientific material. The layman\r\ntakes certain conclusions which get into circulation to\r\nbe science. But the scientific inquirer knows that\r\nthey constitute science only in connection with the\r\nmethods by which they are reached. Even when true,\r\nthey are not science in virtue of their correctness, but\r\nby reason of the apparatus which is employed in reaching\r\nthem. This apparatus is so highly specialized\r\nthat it requires more labor to acquire ability to use and\r\nunderstand it than to get skill in any other instrumentalities\r\npossessed by man. Science, in other words,\r\nis a highly specialized language, more difficult to learn\r\nthan any natural language. It is an artificial\r\nlanguage, not in the sense of being factitious, but in\r\nthat of being a work of intricate art, devoted to a\r\nparticular purpose and not capable of being acquired\r\nnor understood in the way in which the mother tongue\r\nis learned. It is, indeed, conceivable that sometime\r\nmethods of instruction will be devised which will enable\r\nlaymen to read and hear scientific material with comprehension,\r\neven when they do not themselves use the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_164\"\u003e164\u003c/span\u003e\r\napparatus which is science. The latter may then\r\nbecome for large numbers what students of language\r\ncall a passive, if not an active, vocabulary. But that\r\ntime is in the future.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eFor most men, save the scientific workers, science is\r\na mystery in the hands of initiates, who have become\r\nadepts in virtue of following ritualistic ceremonies from\r\nwhich the profane herd is excluded. They are fortunate\r\nwho get as far as a sympathetic appreciation of the\r\nmethods which give pattern to the complicated apparatus:\r\nmethods of analytic, experimental observation,\r\nmathematical formulation and deduction, constant and\r\nelaborate check and test. For most persons, the reality\r\nof the apparatus is found only in its embodiments in\r\npractical affairs, in mechanical devices and in techniques\r\nwhich touch life as it is lived. For them, electricity\r\nis \u003cem\u003eknown\u003c/em\u003e by means of the telephones, bells and\r\nlights they use, by the generators and magnetos in the\r\nautomobiles they drive, by the trolley cars in which\r\nthey ride. The physiology and biology they are acquainted\r\nwith is that they have learned in taking\r\nprecautions against germs and from the physicians they\r\ndepend upon for health. The science of what might\r\nbe supposed to be closest to them, of human nature,\r\nwas for them an esoteric mystery until it was applied\r\nin advertising, salesmanship and personnel selection\r\nand management, and until, through psychiatry,\r\nit spilled over into life and popular consciousness,\r\nthrough its bearings upon “nerves,” the morbidities\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_165\"\u003e165\u003c/span\u003e\r\nand common forms of crankiness which\r\nmake it difficult for persons to get along with one\r\nanother and with themselves. Even now, popular\r\npsychology is a mass of cant, of slush and of superstition\r\nworthy of the most flourishing days of the\r\nmedicine man.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eMeanwhile the technological application of the complex\r\napparatus which is science has revolutionized the\r\nconditions under which associated life goes on. This\r\nmay be known as a fact which is stated in a proposition\r\nand assented to. But it is not known in the sense\r\nthat men understand it. They do not know it as they\r\nknow some machine which they operate, or as they\r\nknow electric light and steam locomotives. They do\r\nnot understand \u003cem\u003ehow\u003c/em\u003e the change has gone on nor \u003cem\u003ehow\u003c/em\u003e\r\nit affects their conduct. Not understanding its “how,”\r\nthey cannot use and control its manifestations. They\r\nundergo the consequences, they are affected by them.\r\nThey cannot manage them, though some are fortunate\r\nenough—what is commonly called good fortune—to be\r\nable to exploit some phase of the process for their own\r\npersonal profit. But even the most shrewd and successful\r\nman does not in any analytic and systematic\r\nway—in a way worthy to compare with the knowledge\r\nwhich he has won in lesser affairs by means of the stress\r\nof experience—know the system within which he operates.\r\nSkill and ability work within a framework\r\nwhich we have not created and do not comprehend.\r\nSome occupy strategic positions which give them advance\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_166\"\u003e166\u003c/span\u003e\r\ninformation of forces that affect the market;\r\nand by training and an innate turn that way they have\r\nacquired a special technique which enables them to use\r\nthe vast impersonal tide to turn their own wheels.\r\nThey can dam the current here and release it there.\r\nThe current itself is as much beyond them as was ever\r\nthe river by the side of which some ingenious mechanic,\r\nemploying a knowledge which was transmitted to him,\r\nerected his saw-mill to make boards of trees which he\r\nhad not grown. That within limits those successful in\r\naffairs have knowledge and skill is not to be doubted.\r\nBut such knowledge goes relatively but little further\r\nthan that of the competent skilled operator who manages\r\na machine. It suffices to employ the conditions\r\nwhich are before him. Skill enables him to turn the\r\nflux of events this way or that in his own neighborhood.\r\nIt gives him no control of the flux.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhy should the public and its officers, even if the\r\nlatter are termed statesmen, be wiser and more effective?\r\nThe prime condition of a democratically organized\r\npublic is a kind of knowledge and insight\r\nwhich does not yet exist. In its absence, it would be\r\nthe height of absurdity to try to tell what it would be\r\nlike if it existed. But some of the conditions which\r\nmust be fulfilled if it is to exist can be indicated. We\r\ncan borrow that much from the spirit and method of\r\nscience even if we are ignorant of it as a specialized\r\napparatus. An obvious requirement is freedom of\r\nsocial inquiry and of distribution of its conclusions.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_167\"\u003e167\u003c/span\u003e\r\nThe notion that men may be free in their thought even\r\nwhen they are not in its expression and dissemination\r\nhas been sedulously propagated. It had its origin in\r\nthe idea of a mind complete in itself, apart from action\r\nand from objects. Such a consciousness presents in\r\nfact the spectacle of mind deprived of its normal functioning,\r\nbecause it is baffled by the actualities in connection\r\nwith which alone it is truly mind, and is driven\r\nback into secluded and impotent revery.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere can be no public without full publicity in\r\nrespect to all consequences which concern it. Whatever\r\nobstructs and restricts publicity, limits and distorts\r\npublic opinion and checks and distorts thinking on\r\nsocial affairs. Without freedom of expression, not\r\neven methods of social inquiry can be developed. For\r\ntools can be evolved and perfected only in operation;\r\nin application to observing, reporting and organizing\r\nactual subject-matter; and this application cannot\r\noccur save through free and systematic communication.\r\nThe early history of physical knowledge, of Greek conceptions\r\nof natural phenomena, proves how inept become\r\nthe conceptions of the best endowed minds when\r\nthose ideas are elaborated apart from the closest contact\r\nwith the events which they purport to state and\r\nexplain. The ruling ideas and methods of the human\r\nsciences are in much the same condition to-day. They\r\nare also evolved on the basis of past gross observations,\r\nremote from constant use in regulation of the material\r\nof new observations.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_168\"\u003e168\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe belief that thought and its communication are\r\nnow free simply because legal restrictions which once\r\nobtained have been done away with is absurd. Its\r\ncurrency perpetuates the infantile state of social\r\nknowledge. For it blurs recognition of our central need\r\nto possess conceptions which are used as tools of directed\r\ninquiry and which are tested, rectified and caused\r\nto grow in actual use. No man and no mind was ever\r\nemancipated merely by being left alone. Removal of\r\nformal limitations is but a negative condition; positive\r\nfreedom is not a state but an act which involves methods\r\nand instrumentalities for control of conditions. Experience\r\nshows that sometimes the sense of external oppression,\r\nas by censorship, acts as a challenge and\r\narouses intellectual energy and excites courage. But a\r\nbelief in intellectual freedom where it does not exist\r\ncontributes only to complacency in virtual enslavement,\r\nto sloppiness, superficiality and recourse to sensations\r\nas a substitute for ideas: marked traits of our\r\npresent estate with respect to social knowledge. On\r\none hand, thinking deprived of its normal course takes\r\nrefuge in academic specialism, comparable in its way\r\nto what is called scholasticism. On the other hand,\r\nthe physical agencies of publicity which exist in such\r\nabundance are utilized in ways which constitute a large\r\npart of the present meaning of publicity: advertising,\r\npropaganda, invasion of private life, the “featuring”\r\nof passing incidents in a way which violates all the\r\nmoving logic of continuity, and which leaves us with\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_169\"\u003e169\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthose isolated intrusions and shocks which are the\r\nessence of “sensations.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt would be a mistake to identify the conditions\r\nwhich limit free communication and circulation of facts\r\nand ideas, and which thereby arrest and pervert social\r\nthought or inquiry, merely with overt forces which are\r\nobstructive. It is true that those who have ability\r\nto manipulate social relations for their own advantage\r\nhave to be reckoned with. They have an uncanny instinct\r\nfor detecting whatever intellectual tendencies\r\neven remotely threaten to encroach upon their control.\r\nThey have developed an extraordinary facility in enlisting\r\nupon their side the inertia, prejudices and emotional\r\npartisanship of the masses by use of a technique\r\nwhich impedes free inquiry and expression. We seem\r\nto be approaching a state of government by hired promoters\r\nof opinion called publicity agents. But the\r\nmore serious enemy is deeply concealed in hidden entrenchments.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eEmotional habituations and intellectual habitudes\r\non the part of the mass of men create the conditions\r\nof which the exploiters of sentiment and opinion only\r\ntake advantage. Men have got used to an experimental\r\nmethod in physical and technical matters. They are\r\nstill afraid of it in human concerns. The fear is the\r\nmore efficacious because like all deep-lying fears it is\r\ncovered up and disguised by all kinds of rationalizations.\r\nOne of its commonest forms is a truly religious\r\nidealization of, and reverence for, established institutions;\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_170\"\u003e170\u003c/span\u003e\r\nfor example in our own politics, the Constitution,\r\nthe Supreme Court, private property, free contract\r\nand so on. The words “sacred” and “sanctity” come\r\nreadily to our lips when such things come under discussion.\r\nThey testify to the religious aureole which\r\nprotects the institutions. If “holy” means that which\r\nis not to be approached nor touched, save with ceremonial\r\nprecautions and by specially anointed officials,\r\nthen such things are holy in contemporary political\r\nlife. As supernatural matters have progressively been\r\nleft high and dry upon a secluded beach, the actuality\r\nof religious taboos has more and more gathered about\r\nsecular institutions, especially those connected with\r\nthe nationalistic state.\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_12\" href=\"#Footnote_12\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e12\u003c/a\u003e Psychiatrists have discovered\r\nthat one of the commonest causes of mental disturbance\r\nis an underlying fear of which the subject is not\r\naware, but which leads to withdrawal from reality and\r\nto unwillingness to think things through. There is a\r\nsocial pathology which works powerfully against effective\r\ninquiry into social institutions and conditions.\r\nIt manifests itself in a thousand ways; in querulousness,\r\nin impotent drifting, in uneasy snatching at distractions,\r\nin idealization of the long established, in a\r\nfacile optimism assumed as a cloak, in riotous glorification\r\nof things “as they are,” in intimidation of all dissenters—ways\r\nwhich depress and dissipate thought all\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_171\"\u003e171\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe more effectually because they operate with subtle\r\nand unconscious pervasiveness.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe backwardness of social knowledge is marked in\r\nits division into independent and insulated branches of\r\nlearning. Anthropology, history, sociology, morals,\r\neconomics, political science, go their own ways without\r\nconstant and systematized fruitful interaction. Only\r\nin appearance is there a similar division in physical\r\nknowledge. There is continuous cross-fertilization between\r\nastronomy, physics, chemistry and the biological\r\nsciences. Discoveries and improved methods are so\r\nrecorded and organized that constant exchange and\r\nintercommunication take place. The isolation of the\r\nhumane subjects from one another is connected with\r\ntheir aloofness from physical knowledge. The mind\r\nstill draws a sharp separation between the world in\r\nwhich man lives and the life of man in and by that\r\nworld, a cleft reflected in the separation of man himself\r\ninto a body and a mind, which, it is currently supposed,\r\ncan be known and dealt with apart. That for the past\r\nthree centuries energy should have gone chiefly into\r\nphysical inquiry, beginning with the things most remote\r\nfrom man such as heavenly bodies, was to have been expected.\r\nThe history of the physical sciences reveals a\r\ncertain order in which they developed. Mathematical\r\ntools had to be employed before a new astronomy could\r\nbe constructed. Physics advanced when ideas worked\r\nout in connection with the solar system were used to\r\ndescribe happenings on the earth. Chemistry waited\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_172\"\u003e172\u003c/span\u003e\r\non the advance of physics; the sciences of living things\r\nrequired the material and methods of physics and chemistry\r\nin order to make headway. Human psychology\r\nceased to be chiefly speculative opinion only when\r\nbiological and physiological conclusions were available.\r\nAll this is natural and seemingly inevitable. Things\r\nwhich had the most outlying and indirect connection\r\nwith human interests had to be mastered in some degree\r\nbefore inquiries could competently converge upon man\r\nhimself.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eNevertheless the course of development has left us of\r\nthis age in a plight. When we say that a subject\r\nof science is technically specialized, or that it is highly\r\n“abstract,” what we practically mean is that it is not\r\nconceived in terms of its bearing upon human life. All\r\n\u003cem\u003emerely\u003c/em\u003e physical knowledge is technical, couched in a\r\ntechnical vocabulary communicable only to the few.\r\nEven physical knowledge which does affect human conduct,\r\nwhich does modify what we do and undergo, is\r\nalso technical and remote in the degree in which its\r\nbearings are not understood and used. The sunlight,\r\nrain, air and soil have always entered in visible ways\r\ninto human experience; atoms and molecules and cells\r\nand most other things with which the sciences are occupied\r\naffect us, but not visibly. Because they enter life\r\nand modify experience in imperceptible ways, and their\r\nconsequences are not realized, speech about them is technical;\r\ncommunication is by means of peculiar symbols.\r\nOne would think, then, that a fundamental and ever-operating\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_173\"\u003e173\u003c/span\u003e\r\naim would be to translate knowledge of the\r\nsubject-matter of physical conditions into terms which\r\nare generally understood, into signs denoting human\r\nconsequences of services and disservices rendered. For\r\nultimately all consequences which enter human life depend\r\nupon physical conditions; they can be understood\r\nand mastered only as the latter are taken into\r\naccount. One would think, then, that any state of affairs\r\nwhich tends to render the things of the environment\r\nunknown and incommunicable by human beings in\r\nterms of their own activities and sufferings would be\r\ndeplored as a disaster; that it would be felt to be intolerable,\r\nand to be put up with only as far as it is, at\r\nany given time, inevitable.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut the facts are to the contrary. Matter and the\r\nmaterial are words which in the minds of many convey\r\na note of disparagement. They are taken to be foes\r\nof whatever is of ideal value in life, instead of as conditions\r\nof its manifestation and sustained being. In\r\nconsequence of this division, they do become in fact\r\nenemies, for whatever is consistently kept apart from\r\nhuman values depresses thought and renders values\r\nsparse and precarious in fact. There are even some\r\nwho regard the materialism and dominance of commercialism\r\nof modern life as fruits of undue devotion to\r\nphysical science, not seeing that the split between\r\nman and nature, artificially made by a tradition which\r\noriginated before there was understanding of the\r\nphysical conditions that are the medium of human\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_174\"\u003e174\u003c/span\u003e\r\nactivities, is the benumbing factor. The most influential\r\nform of the divorce is separation between\r\npure and applied science. Since “application” signifies\r\nrecognized bearing upon human experience and well-being,\r\nhonor of what is “pure” and contempt for what\r\nis “applied” has for its outcome a science which is\r\nremote and technical, communicable only to specialists,\r\nand a conduct of human affairs which is haphazard,\r\nbiased, unfair in distribution of values. What is applied\r\nand employed as the alternative to knowledge in\r\nregulation of society is ignorance, prejudice, class-interest\r\nand accident. Science is converted into\r\nknowledge in its honorable and emphatic sense \u003cem\u003eonly\u003c/em\u003e in\r\napplication. Otherwise it is truncated, blind, distorted.\r\nWhen it is then applied, it is in ways which\r\nexplain the unfavorable sense so often attached to\r\n“application” and the “utilitarian”: namely, use for\r\npecuniary ends to the profit of a few.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAt present, the application of physical science is\r\nrather \u003cem\u003eto\u003c/em\u003e human concerns than \u003cem\u003ein\u003c/em\u003e them. That is, it\r\nis external, made in the interests of its consequences\r\nfor a possessing and acquisitive class. Application \u003cem\u003ein\u003c/em\u003e\r\nlife would signify that science was absorbed and distributed;\r\nthat it was the instrumentality of that common\r\nunderstanding and thorough communication which\r\nis the precondition of the existence of a genuine and\r\neffective public. The use of science to regulate industry\r\nand trade has gone on steadily. The scientific\r\nrevolution of the seventeenth century was the precursor\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_175\"\u003e175\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof the industrial revolution of the eighteenth and nineteenth.\r\nIn consequence, man has suffered the impact\r\nof an enormously enlarged control of physical energies\r\nwithout any corresponding ability to control himself\r\nand his own affairs. Knowledge divided against itself,\r\na science to whose incompleteness is added an artificial\r\nsplit, has played its part in generating enslavement\r\nof men, women and children in factories in which\r\nthey are animated machines to tend inanimate machines.\r\nIt has maintained sordid slums, flurried and discontented\r\ncareers, grinding poverty and luxurious wealth,\r\nbrutal exploitation of nature and man in times of\r\npeace and high explosives and noxious gases in times\r\nof war. Man, a child in understanding of himself, has\r\nplaced in his hands physical tools of incalculable\r\npower. He plays with them like a child, and whether\r\nthey work harm or good is largely a matter of accident.\r\nThe instrumentality becomes a master and works\r\nfatally as if possessed of a will of its own—not because\r\nit has a will but because man has not.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe glorification of “pure” science under such conditions\r\nis a rationalization of an escape; it marks a\r\nconstruction of an asylum of refuge, a shirking of responsibility.\r\nThe true purity of knowledge exists not\r\nwhen it is uncontaminated by contact with use and\r\nservice. It is wholly a moral matter, an affair of\r\nhonesty, impartiality and generous breadth of intent\r\nin search and communication. The adulteration of\r\nknowledge is due not to its use, but to vested bias and\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_176\"\u003e176\u003c/span\u003e\r\nprejudice, to one-sidedness of outlook, to vanity, to\r\nconceit of possession and authority, to contempt or\r\ndisregard of human concern in its use. Humanity is\r\nnot, as was once thought, the end for which all things\r\nwere formed; it is but a slight and feeble thing, perhaps\r\nan episodic one, in the vast stretch of the universe.\r\nBut for man, man is the center of interest and\r\nthe measure of importance. The magnifying of the\r\nphysical realm at the cost of man is but an abdication\r\nand a flight. To make physical science a rival of\r\nhuman interests is bad enough, for it forms a diversion\r\nof energy which can ill be afforded. But the evil does\r\nnot stop there. The ultimate harm is that the understanding\r\nby man of his own affairs and his ability to\r\ndirect them are sapped at their root when knowledge of\r\nnature is disconnected from its human function.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt has been implied throughout that knowledge is\r\ncommunication as well as understanding. I well remember\r\nthe saying of a man, uneducated from the\r\nstandpoint of the schools, in speaking of certain matters:\r\n“Sometime they will be found out and not only\r\nfound out, but they will be known.” The schools may\r\nsuppose that a thing is known when it is found out.\r\nMy old friend was aware that a thing is fully known\r\nonly when it is published, shared, socially accessible.\r\nRecord and communication are indispensable to knowledge.\r\nKnowledge cooped up in a private consciousness\r\nis a myth, and knowledge of social phenomena is\r\npeculiarly dependent upon dissemination, for only\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_177\"\u003e177\u003c/span\u003e\r\nby distribution can such knowledge be either obtained\r\nor tested. A fact of community life which is not\r\nspread abroad so as to be a common possession is a\r\ncontradiction in terms. Dissemination is something\r\nother than scattering at large. Seeds are sown, not by\r\nvirtue of being thrown out at random, but by being so\r\ndistributed as to take root and have a chance of growth.\r\nCommunication of the results of social inquiry is the\r\nsame thing as the formation of public opinion. This\r\nmarks one of the first ideas framed in the growth of\r\npolitical democracy as it will be one of the last to be\r\nfulfilled. For public opinion is judgment which is\r\nformed and entertained by those who constitute the\r\npublic and is about public affairs. Each of the two\r\nphases imposes for its realization conditions hard to\r\nmeet.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eOpinions and beliefs concerning the public presuppose\r\neffective and organized inquiry. Unless there are\r\nmethods for detecting the energies which are at work\r\nand tracing them through an intricate network of\r\ninteractions to their consequences, what passes as\r\npublic opinion will be “opinion” in its derogatory sense\r\nrather than truly public, no matter how widespread the\r\nopinion is. The number who share error as to fact\r\nand who partake of a false belief measures power for\r\nharm. Opinion casually formed and formed under the\r\ndirection of those who have something at stake in having\r\na lie believed can be \u003cem\u003epublic\u003c/em\u003e opinion only in name.\r\nCalling it by this name, acceptance of the name as a\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_178\"\u003e178\u003c/span\u003e\r\nkind of warrant, magnifies its capacity to lead action\r\nestray. The more who share it, the more injurious its\r\ninfluence. Public opinion, even if it happens to be correct,\r\nis intermittent when it is not the product of\r\nmethods of investigation and reporting constantly at\r\nwork. It appears only in crises. Hence its “rightness”\r\nconcerns only an immediate emergency. Its lack\r\nof continuity makes it wrong from the standpoint of\r\nthe course of events. It is as if a physician were able\r\nto deal for the moment with an emergency in disease\r\nbut could not adapt his treatment of it to the underlying\r\nconditions which brought it about. He may then\r\n“cure” the disease—that is, cause its present alarming\r\nsymptoms to subside—but he does not modify its\r\ncauses; his treatment may even affect them for the\r\nworse. Only continuous inquiry, continuous in the sense\r\nof being connected as well as persistent, can provide the\r\nmaterial of enduring opinion about public matters.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere is a sense in which “opinion” rather than\r\nknowledge, even under the most favorable circumstances,\r\nis the proper term to use—namely, in the\r\nsense of judgment, estimate. For in its strict sense,\r\nknowledge can refer only to what \u003cem\u003ehas\u003c/em\u003e happened and\r\nbeen done. What is still \u003cem\u003eto be\u003c/em\u003e done involves a forecast\r\nof a future still contingent, and cannot escape the\r\nliability to error in judgment involved in all anticipation\r\nof probabilities. There may well be honest\r\ndivergence as to policies to be pursued, even when plans\r\nspring from knowledge of the same facts. But genuinely\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_179\"\u003e179\u003c/span\u003e\r\npublic policy cannot be generated unless it be informed\r\nby knowledge, and this knowledge does not\r\nexist except when there is systematic, thorough, and\r\nwell-equipped search and record.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, inquiry must be as nearly contemporaneous\r\nas possible; otherwise it is only of antiquarian\r\ninterest. Knowledge of history is evidently necessary\r\nfor connectedness of knowledge. But history which is\r\nnot brought down close to the actual scene of events\r\nleaves a gap and exercises influence upon the formation\r\nof judgments about the public interest only by\r\nguess-work about intervening events. Here, only too\r\nconspicuously, is a limitation of the existing social\r\nsciences. Their material comes too late, too far after\r\nthe event, to enter effectively into the formation of\r\npublic opinion about the immediate public concern and\r\nwhat is to be done about it.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eA glance at the situation shows that the physical and\r\nexternal means of collecting information in regard to\r\nwhat is happening in the world have far outrun the\r\nintellectual phase of inquiry and organization of its\r\nresults. Telegraph, telephone, and now the radio,\r\ncheap and quick mails, the printing press, capable of\r\nswift reduplication of material at low cost, have attained\r\na remarkable development. But when we ask\r\nwhat sort of material is recorded and how it is organized,\r\nwhen we ask about the intellectual form in\r\nwhich the material is presented, the tale to be told is\r\nvery different. “News” signifies something which has\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_180\"\u003e180\u003c/span\u003e\r\njust happened, and which is new just because it deviates\r\nfrom the old and regular. But its \u003cem\u003emeaning\u003c/em\u003e depends\r\nupon relation to what it imports, to what its social\r\nconsequences are. This import cannot be determined\r\nunless the new is placed in relation to the old, to what\r\nhas happened and been integrated into the course\r\nof events. Without coördination and consecutiveness,\r\nevents are not events, but mere occurrences, intrusions;\r\nan event implies that out of which a happening proceeds.\r\nHence even if we discount the influence of\r\nprivate interests in procuring suppression, secrecy and\r\nmisrepresentation, we have here an explanation of the\r\ntriviality and “sensational” quality of so much of what\r\npasses as news. The catastrophic, namely, crime, accident,\r\nfamily rows, personal clashes and conflicts, are the\r\nmost obvious forms of breaches of continuity; they\r\nsupply the element of shock which is the strictest meaning\r\nof sensation; they are the \u003cem\u003enew\u003c/em\u003e par excellence, even\r\nthough only the date of the newspaper could inform\r\nus whether they happened last year or this, so completely\r\nare they isolated from their connections.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eSo accustomed are we to this method of collecting,\r\nrecording and presenting social changes, that it may\r\nwell sound ridiculous to say that a genuine social\r\nscience would manifest its reality in the daily press,\r\nwhile learned books and articles supply and polish\r\ntools of inquiry. But the inquiry which alone can\r\nfurnish knowledge as a precondition of public judgments\r\nmust be contemporary and quotidian. Even if\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_181\"\u003e181\u003c/span\u003e\r\nsocial sciences as a specialized apparatus of inquiry\r\nwere more advanced than they are, they would be\r\ncomparatively impotent in the office of directing opinion\r\non matters of concern to the public as long as they are\r\nremote from application in the daily and unremitting\r\nassembly and interpretation of “news.” On the other\r\nhand, the tools of social inquiry will be clumsy as long\r\nas they are forged in places and under conditions\r\nremote from contemporary events.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat has been said about the formation of ideas\r\nand judgments concerning the public apply as well\r\nto the distribution of the knowledge which makes it\r\nan effective possession of the members of the public.\r\nAny separation between the two sides of the problem\r\nis artificial. The discussion of propaganda and\r\npropagandism would alone, however, demand a volume,\r\nand could be written only by one much more experienced\r\nthan the present writer. Propaganda can accordingly\r\nonly be mentioned, with the remark that the present\r\nsituation is one unprecedented in history. The\r\npolitical forms of democracy and quasi-democratic\r\nhabits of thought on social matters have compelled a\r\ncertain amount of public discussion and at least the\r\nsimulation of general consultation in arriving at\r\npolitical decisions. Representative government must\r\nat least seem to be founded on public interests as they\r\nare revealed to public belief. The days are past\r\nwhen government can be carried on without any pretense\r\nof ascertaining the wishes of the governed. In\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_182\"\u003e182\u003c/span\u003e\r\ntheory, their assent must be secured. Under the older\r\nforms, there was no need to muddy the sources of\r\nopinion on political matters. No current of energy\r\nflowed from them. To-day the judgments popularly\r\nformed on political matters are so important, in spite\r\nof all factors to the contrary, that there is an enormous\r\npremium upon all methods which affect their formation.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe smoothest road to control of political conduct is\r\nby control of opinion. As long as interests of pecuniary\r\nprofit are powerful, and a public has not located\r\nand identified itself, those who have this interest will\r\nhave an unresisted motive for tampering with the\r\nsprings of political action in all that affects them. Just\r\nas in the conduct of industry and exchange generally\r\nthe technological factor is obscured, deflected and\r\ndefeated by “business,” so specifically in the management\r\nof publicity. The gathering and sale of subject-matter\r\nhaving a public import is part of the existing\r\npecuniary system. Just as industry conducted by engineers\r\non a factual technological basis would be a\r\nvery different thing from what it actually is, so the\r\nassembling and reporting of news would be a very different\r\nthing if the genuine interests of reporters were\r\npermitted to work freely.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eOne aspect of the matter concerns particularly the\r\nside of dissemination. It is often said, and with a\r\ngreat appearance of truth, that the freeing and perfecting\r\nof inquiry would not have any especial effect.\r\nFor, it is argued, the mass of the reading public is not\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_183\"\u003e183\u003c/span\u003e\r\ninterested in learning and assimilating the results of\r\naccurate investigation. Unless these are read, they\r\ncannot seriously affect the thought and action of\r\nmembers of the public; they remain in secluded library\r\nalcoves, and are studied and understood only by a\r\nfew intellectuals. The objection is well taken save as\r\nthe potency of art is taken into account. A technical\r\nhigh-brow presentation would appeal only to those\r\ntechnically high-brow; it would not be news to the\r\nmasses. Presentation is fundamentally important, and\r\npresentation is a question of art. A newspaper which\r\nwas only a daily edition of a quarterly journal of\r\nsociology or political science would undoubtedly possess\r\na limited circulation and a narrow influence. Even at\r\nthat, however, the mere existence and accessibility of\r\nsuch material would have some regulative effect. But\r\nwe can look much further than that. The material\r\nwould have such an enormous and widespread human\r\nbearing that its bare existence would be an irresistible\r\ninvitation to a presentation of it which would have a direct\r\npopular appeal. The freeing of the artist in literary\r\npresentation, in other words, is as much a precondition\r\nof the desirable creation of adequate opinion on\r\npublic matters as is the freeing of social inquiry. Men’s\r\nconscious life of opinion and judgment often proceeds\r\non a superficial and trivial plane. But their lives reach\r\na deeper level. The function of art has always been to\r\nbreak through the crust of conventionalized and routine\r\nconsciousness. Common things, a flower, a gleam of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_184\"\u003e184\u003c/span\u003e\r\nmoonlight, the song of a bird, not things rare and\r\nremote, are means with which the deeper levels of life\r\nare touched so that they spring up as desire and\r\nthought. This process is art. Poetry, the drama, the\r\nnovel, are proofs that the problem of presentation is not\r\ninsoluble. Artists have always been the real purveyors\r\nof news, for it is not the outward happening in itself\r\nwhich is new, but the kindling by it of emotion, perception\r\nand appreciation.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe have but touched lightly and in passing upon\r\nthe conditions which must be fulfilled if the Great\r\nSociety is to become a Great Community; a society in\r\nwhich the ever-expanding and intricately ramifying\r\nconsequences of associated activities shall be known in\r\nthe full sense of that word, so that an organized, articulate\r\nPublic comes into being. The highest and most\r\ndifficult kind of inquiry and a subtle, delicate, vivid and\r\nresponsive art of communication must take possession of\r\nthe physical machinery of transmission and circulation\r\nand breathe life into it. When the machine age\r\nhas thus perfected its machinery it will be a means of\r\nlife and not its despotic master. Democracy will come\r\ninto its own, for democracy is a name for a life\r\nof free and enriching communion. It had its seer in\r\nWalt Whitman. It will have its consummation when\r\nfree social inquiry is indissolubly wedded to the art of\r\nfull and moving communication.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap x-ebookmaker-drop\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_185\"\u003e185\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch2 class=\"nobreak\" id=\"toclink_185\"\u003eCHAPTER VI\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cspan class=\"subhead\"\u003eTHE PROBLEM OF METHOD\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003ePerhaps to most, probably to many, the conclusions\r\nwhich have been stated as to the conditions upon which\r\ndepends the emergence of the Public from its eclipse\r\nwill seem close to denial of the possibility of realizing\r\nthe idea of a democratic public. One might indeed\r\npoint for what it is worth to the enormous obstacles\r\nwith which the rise of a science of physical things was\r\nconfronted a few short centuries ago, as evidence that\r\nhope need not be wholly desperate nor faith wholly\r\nblind. But we are not concerned with prophecy but\r\nwith analysis. It is enough for present purposes if the\r\nproblem has been clarified:—if we have seen that the\r\noutstanding problem of the Public is discovery and\r\nidentification of itself, and if we have succeeded, in\r\nhowever groping a manner, in apprehending the conditions\r\nupon which the resolution of the problem depends.\r\nWe shall conclude with suggesting some implications\r\nand corollaries as to method, not, indeed,\r\nas to the method of resolution, but, once more, the\r\nintellectual antecedents of such a method.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe preliminary to fruitful discussion of social matters\r\nis that certain obstacles shall be overcome, obstacles\r\nresiding in our present conceptions of the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_186\"\u003e186\u003c/span\u003e\r\nmethod of social inquiry. One of the obstructions in\r\nthe path is the seemingly engrained notion that the\r\nfirst and the last problem which must be solved is the\r\nrelation of the individual and the social:—or that the\r\noutstanding question is to determine the relative merits\r\nof individualism and collective or of some compromise\r\nbetween them. In fact, both words, individual and social,\r\nare hopelessly ambiguous, and the ambiguity will\r\nnever cease as long as we think in terms of an antithesis.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn its approximate sense, anything is individual\r\nwhich moves and acts as a unitary thing. For common\r\nsense, a certain spatial separateness is the mark\r\nof this individuality. A thing is one when it stands,\r\nlies or moves as a unit independently of other things,\r\nwhether it be a stone, tree, molecule or drop of water,\r\nor a human being. But even vulgar common sense at\r\nonce introduces certain qualifications. The tree stands\r\nonly when rooted in the soil; it lives or dies in the mode\r\nof its connections with sunlight, air and water. Then\r\ntoo the tree is a collection of interacting parts; is the\r\ntree more a single whole than its cells? A stone moves,\r\napparently alone. But it is moved by something else\r\nand the course of its flight is dependent not only upon\r\ninitial propulsion but upon wind and gravity. A hammer\r\nfalls, and what was one stone becomes a heap of\r\ndusty particles. A chemist operates with one of the\r\ngrains of dust, and forthwith it disappears in molecules,\r\natoms and electrons—and then? Have we now\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_187\"\u003e187\u003c/span\u003e\r\nreached a lonely, but not lonesome, individual? Or\r\ndoes, perhaps, an electron depend for its single and\r\nunitary mode of action upon its connections, as much\r\nas the stone with which we started? Is its action also\r\na function of some more inclusive and interacting\r\nscene?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eFrom another point of view, we have to qualify our\r\napproximate notion of an individual as being that\r\nwhich acts and moves as a unitary thing. We have to\r\nconsider not only its connections and ties, but the consequences\r\nwith respect to which it acts and moves. We\r\nare compelled to say that for some purposes, for some\r\nresults, the tree is the individual, for others the cell,\r\nand for a third, the forest or the landscape. Is a book\r\nor a leaf or a folio or a paragraph, or a printer’s em\r\n\u003cem\u003ethe\u003c/em\u003e individual? Is the binding or the contained thought\r\nthat which gives individual unity to a book? Or are\r\nall of these things definers of an individual according\r\nto the consequences which are relevant in a particular\r\nsituation? Unless we betake ourselves to the stock resort\r\nof common sense, dismissing \u003cem\u003eall\u003c/em\u003e questions as useless\r\nquibbles, it seems as if we could not determine an individual\r\nwithout reference to differences made as well as\r\nto antecedent and contemporary connections. If so, an\r\nindividual, whatever else it is or is not, is not just the\r\nspatially isolated thing our imagination inclines to take\r\nit to be.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eSuch a discussion does not proceed upon a particularly\r\nhigh nor an especially deep level. But it may at\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_188\"\u003e188\u003c/span\u003e\r\nleast render us wary of any definition of an individual\r\nwhich operates in terms of separateness. A \u003cem\u003edistinctive\u003c/em\u003e\r\nway of behaving in conjunction and \u003cem\u003econnection\u003c/em\u003e\r\nwith other distinctive ways of acting, not a self-enclosed\r\nway of acting, independent of everything else, is that\r\ntoward which we are pointed. Any human being is\r\nin one respect an association, consisting of a multitude\r\nof cells each living its own life. And as the activity of\r\neach cell is conditioned and directed by those with\r\nwhich it interacts, so the human being whom we fasten\r\nupon as individual \u003ci lang=\"fr\"\u003epar excellence\u003c/i\u003e is moved and regulated\r\nby his associations with others; what he does and\r\nwhat the consequences of his behavior are, what his\r\nexperience consists of, cannot even be described, much\r\nless accounted for, in isolation.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut while associated behavior is, as we have already\r\nnoted, a universal law, the fact of association\r\ndoes not of itself make a society. This demands, as\r\nwe have also seen, perception of the consequences of a\r\njoint activity and of the distinctive share of each\r\nelement in producing it. Such perception creates a\r\ncommon interest; that is concern on the part of each in\r\nthe joint action and in the contribution of each of its\r\nmembers to it. Then there exists something truly social\r\nand not merely associative. But it is absurd to suppose\r\nthat a society does away with the traits of its own constituents\r\nso that it can be set over against them. It can\r\nonly be set over against the traits which they and their\r\nlike present in some \u003cem\u003eother\u003c/em\u003e combination. A molecule of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_189\"\u003e189\u003c/span\u003e\r\noxygen in water may act in certain respects differently\r\nthan it would in some other chemical union. But as a\r\nconstituent of water it acts as water does as long as\r\nwater is water. The only intelligible distinction which\r\ncan be drawn is between the behaviors of oxygen in \u003cem\u003eits\u003c/em\u003e\r\ndifferent relations, and between those of water in \u003cem\u003eits\u003c/em\u003e\r\nrelations to various conditions, not between that of\r\nwater and the oxygen which is conjoined with hydrogen\r\nin water.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eA single man when he is joined in marriage is different\r\nin that connection to what he was as single or\r\nto what he is in some other union, as a member, say, of\r\na club. He has new powers and immunities, new responsibilities.\r\nHe can be contrasted with \u003cem\u003ehimself\u003c/em\u003e as he\r\nbehaves in other connections. He may be compared and\r\ncontrasted with his wife in their distinctive rôles within\r\nthe union. But \u003cem\u003eas\u003c/em\u003e a member of the union he cannot be\r\ntreated as antithetical to the union in which he belongs.\r\n\u003cem\u003eAs\u003c/em\u003e a member of the union, his traits and acts are evidently\r\nthose which he possesses in virtue of it, while\r\nthose of the integrated association are what they are\r\nin virtue of his status in the union. The only reason\r\nwe fail to see this, or are confused by the statement of\r\nit, is because we pass so easily from the man in one connection\r\nto the man in some other connection, to the\r\nman not as husband but as business man, scientific investigator,\r\nchurch-member or citizen, in which connections\r\nhis acts and their consequences are obviously\r\ndifferent to those due to union in wedlock.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_190\"\u003e190\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eA good example of the fact and of the current confusion\r\nas to its interpretation is found in the case of\r\nassociations known as limited liability joint-stock companies.\r\nA corporation as such is an integrated collective\r\nmode of action having powers, rights, duties and\r\nimmunities different from those of its singular members\r\n\u003cem\u003ein their other connections\u003c/em\u003e. Its different constituents\r\nhave also diverse statuses—for example, the owners\r\nof stock from the officers and directors in certain matters.\r\nIf we do not bear the facts steadily in mind, it\r\nis easy—as frequently happens—to create an artificial\r\nproblem. Since the corporation can do things which\r\nits individual members, \u003cem\u003ein their many relationships outside\r\nof their connections in the corporation\u003c/em\u003e, cannot do,\r\nthe problem is raised as to the relation of the corporate\r\ncollective union to that of individuals \u003cem\u003eas such\u003c/em\u003e. It is\r\nforgotten that as members of the corporation the individuals\r\nthemselves are different, have different characteristics,\r\nrights and duties, than they would possess\r\nif they were not its members and different from those\r\nwhich they possess in other forms of conjoint behavior.\r\nBut what the individuals may do legitimately \u003cem\u003eas\u003c/em\u003e members\r\nof the corporation in their respective corporate\r\nrôles, the corporation does, and vice versa. A collective\r\nunity may be taken \u003cem\u003eeither\u003c/em\u003e distributively \u003cem\u003eor\u003c/em\u003e collectively,\r\nbut when taken collectively it is the union of its distributive\r\nconstituents, and when taken distributively,\r\nit is a distribution of and within the collectivity. It\r\nmakes nonsense to set up an antithesis between the distributive\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_191\"\u003e191\u003c/span\u003e\r\nphase and the collective. An individual cannot\r\nbe opposed to the association of which he is an\r\nintegral part nor can the association be set against\r\nits integrated members.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut groups may be opposed to one another, and individuals\r\nmay be opposed to one another; and an individual\r\nas a member of different groups may be\r\ndivided within himself, and in a true sense have conflicting\r\nselves, or be a relatively disintegrated individual.\r\nA man may be one thing as a church member and\r\nanother thing as a member of the business community.\r\nThe difference may be carried as if in water-tight compartments,\r\nor it may become such a division as to entail\r\ninternal conflict. In these facts we have the\r\nground of the common antithesis set up between society\r\nand the individual. Then “society” becomes an unreal\r\nabstraction and “\u003cem\u003ethe\u003c/em\u003e individual” an equally unreal\r\none. Because \u003cem\u003ean\u003c/em\u003e individual can be disassociated from\r\nthis, that and the other grouping, since he need not be\r\nmarried, or be a church-member or a voter, or belong\r\nto a club or scientific organization, there grows up in\r\nthe mind an image of a residual individual who is not\r\na member of any association at all. From this premise,\r\nand from this only, there develops the unreal question\r\nof how individuals come to be united in societies and\r\ngroups: \u003cem\u003ethe\u003c/em\u003e individual and \u003cem\u003ethe\u003c/em\u003e social are now opposed\r\nto each other, and there is the problem of “reconciling”\r\nthem. Meanwhile, the genuine problem is that of\r\nadjusting groups and individuals to one another.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_192\"\u003e192\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe unreal problem becomes particularly acute,\r\nas we have already noted in another connection, in\r\ntimes of rapid social change, as when a newly forming\r\nindustrial grouping with its special needs and energies\r\nfinds itself in conflict with old established political institutions\r\nand their demands. Then it is likely to be\r\nforgotten that the actual problem is one of reconstruction\r\nof the ways and forms in which men unite in associated\r\nactivity. The scene presents itself as the\r\nstruggle of the individual as such to liberate himself\r\nfrom society as such and to claim his inherent\r\nor “natural” self-possessed and self-sufficing rights.\r\nWhen the new mode of economic association has grown\r\nstrong and exercises an overweening and oppressive\r\npower over other groupings, the old fallacy persists.\r\nThe problem is now conceived as that of bringing individuals\r\nas such under the control of society as a\r\ncollectivity. It should still be put as a problem of readjusting\r\nsocial relationships; or, from the distributive\r\nside, as that of securing a more equable liberation of\r\nthe powers of all individual members of all groupings.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThus our excursion has brought us back to the\r\ntheme of method, in the interest of which the excursion\r\nwas taken. One reason for the comparative sterility of\r\ndiscussion of social matters is because so much intellectual\r\nenergy has gone into the supposititious problem of\r\nthe relations of individualism and collectivism at large,\r\nwholesale, and because the image of the antithesis infects\r\nso many specific questions. Thereby thought is\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_193\"\u003e193\u003c/span\u003e\r\ndiverted from the only fruitful questions, those of investigation\r\ninto factual subject-matter, and becomes a\r\ndiscussion of concepts. The “problem” of the relation\r\nof the concept of authority to that of freedom, of personal\r\nrights to social obligations, with only a subsumptive\r\nillustrative reference to empirical facts, has\r\nbeen substituted for inquiry into the \u003cem\u003econsequences\u003c/em\u003e of\r\nsome particular distribution, under given conditions, of\r\nspecific freedoms and authorities, and for inquiry into\r\nwhat altered distribution would yield more desirable\r\nconsequences.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAs we saw in our early consideration of the theme of\r\nthe public, the question of what transactions should be\r\nleft as far as possible to voluntary initiative and\r\nagreement and what should come under the regulation\r\nof the public is a question of time, place and concrete\r\nconditions that can be known only by careful observation\r\nand reflective investigation. For it concerns consequences;\r\nand the nature of consequences and the\r\nability to perceive and act upon them varies with the\r\nindustrial and intellectual agencies which operate. A\r\nsolution, or distributive adjustment, needed at one\r\ntime is totally unfitted to another situation. That\r\nsocial “evolution” has been either from collectivism to\r\nindividualism or the reverse is sheer superstition. It\r\nhas consisted in a continuous re-distribution of social\r\nintegrations on the one hand and of capacities and energies\r\nof individuals on the other. Individuals find\r\nthemselves cramped and depressed by absorption of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_194\"\u003e194\u003c/span\u003e\r\ntheir potentialities in some mode of association which\r\nhas been institutionalized and become dominant. They\r\nmay think they are clamoring for a purely personal\r\nliberty, but what they are doing is to bring into being\r\na greater liberty to share in other associations, so that\r\nmore of their individual potentialities will be released\r\nand their personal experience enriched. Life has been\r\nimpoverished, not by a predominance of “society” in\r\ngeneral over individuality, but by a domination of one\r\nform of association, the family, clan, church, economic\r\ninstitutions, over other actual and possible forms. On\r\nthe other hand, the problem of exercising “social control”\r\nover individuals is in its reality that of regulating\r\nthe doings and results of some individuals in order\r\nthat a larger number of individuals may have a fuller\r\nand deeper experience. Since both ends can be intelligently\r\nattained only by knowledge of actual conditions\r\nin their modes of operation and their consequences,\r\nit may be confidently asserted that the chief\r\nenemy of a social thinking which would count in public\r\naffairs is the sterile and impotent, because totally irrelevant,\r\nchannels in which so much intellectual energy\r\nhas been expended.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe second point with respect to method is closely\r\nrelated. Political theories have shared in the absolutistic\r\ncharacter of philosophy generally. By this is\r\nmeant something much more than philosophies of the\r\nAbsolute. Even professedly empirical philosophies have\r\nassumed a certain finality and foreverness in their\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_195\"\u003e195\u003c/span\u003e\r\ntheories which may be expressed by saying that they\r\nhave been non-historical in character. They have isolated\r\ntheir subject-matter from its connections, and\r\nany isolated subject-matter becomes unqualified in the\r\ndegree of its disconnection. In social theory dealing\r\nwith human nature, a certain fixed and standardized\r\n“individual” has been postulated, from whose assumed\r\ntraits social phenomena could be deduced. Thus Mill\r\nsays in his discussion of the logic of the moral and\r\nsocial sciences: “The laws of the phenomena of society\r\nare, and can be, nothing but the laws of the actions and\r\npassions of human beings united together in the social\r\nstate. Men, however, in a state of society are still\r\nmen; their actions and passions are obedient to the\r\nlaws of \u003cem\u003eindividual\u003c/em\u003e human nature.”\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_13\" href=\"#Footnote_13\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e Obviously what\r\nis ignored in such a statement is that “the actions and\r\npassions” of individual men are in the concrete what\r\nthey are, their beliefs and purposes included, because of\r\nthe social medium in which they live; that they are influenced\r\nthroughout by contemporary and transmitted\r\nculture, whether in conformity or protest. What is\r\ngeneric and the same everywhere is at best the organic\r\nstructure of man, his biological make-up. While it is\r\nevidently important to take this into account, it is also\r\nevident that none of the \u003cem\u003edistinctive\u003c/em\u003e features of \u003cem\u003ehuman\u003c/em\u003e\r\nassociation can be deduced from it. Thus, in spite of\r\nMill’s horror of the metaphysical absolute, his leading\r\nsocial conceptions were, logically, absolutistic. Certain\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_196\"\u003e196\u003c/span\u003e\r\nsocial laws, normative and regulative, at all periods\r\nand under all circumstances of proper social life\r\nwere assumed to exist.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe doctrine of evolution modified this idea of\r\nmethod only superficially. For “evolution” was itself\r\noften understood non-historically. That is, it was\r\nassumed that there is a predestined course of fixed\r\nstages through which social development must proceed.\r\nUnder the influence of concepts borrowed from the\r\nphysical science of the time, it was taken for granted\r\nthat the very possibility of a social science stood or\r\nfell with the determination of fixed uniformities. Now\r\nevery such logic is fatal to free experimental social\r\ninquiry. Investigation into empirical facts was undertaken,\r\nof course, but its results had to fit into certain\r\nready-made and second-hand rubrics. When even\r\n\u003cem\u003ephysical\u003c/em\u003e facts and laws are perceived and used, social\r\nchange takes place. The phenomena and laws are not\r\naltered, but invention based upon them modifies the\r\nhuman situation. For there is at once an effort to\r\nregulate their impact in life. The discovery of malaria\r\ndoes not alter its existential causation, intellectually\r\nviewed, but it does finally alter the facts from which the\r\nproduction of malaria arises, through draining and oiling\r\nswamps, etc., and by taking other measures of precaution.\r\nIf the laws of economic cycles of expansion\r\nand depression were understood, means would at once be\r\nsearched for to mitigate if not to do away with the\r\nswing. When men have an idea of how social agencies\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_197\"\u003e197\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwork and their consequences are wrought, they at\r\nonce strive to secure consequences as far as desirable\r\nand to avert them if undesirable. These are\r\nfacts of the most ordinary observation. But it is not\r\noften noted how fatal they are to the identification of\r\nsocial with physical uniformities. “Laws” of social\r\nlife, when it is genuinely human, are like laws of\r\nengineering. If you want certain results, certain\r\nmeans must be found and employed. The key to the\r\nsituation is a clear conception of consequences wanted,\r\nand of the technique for reaching them, together with,\r\nof course, the state of desires and aversions which\r\ncauses some consequences to be wanted rather than\r\nothers. All of these things are functions of the prevalent\r\nculture of the period.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhile the backwardness of social knowledge and art\r\nis of course connected with retarded knowledge of\r\nhuman nature, or psychology, it is also absurd to suppose\r\nthat an adequate psychological science would\r\nflower in a control of human activities similar to the\r\ncontrol which physical science has procured of physical\r\nenergies. For increased knowledge of human nature\r\nwould directly and in unpredictable ways modify the\r\nworkings of human nature, and lead to the need of new\r\nmethods of regulation, and so on without end. It is\r\na matter of analysis rather than of prophecy to say\r\nthat the primary and chief effect of a better psychology\r\nwould be found in education. The growth and diseases\r\nof grains and hogs are now recognized as proper\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_198\"\u003e198\u003c/span\u003e\r\nsubjects of governmental subsidy and attention. Instrumental\r\nagencies for a similar investigation of the\r\nconditions which make for the physical and moral\r\nhygiene of the young are in a state of infancy. We\r\nspend large sums of money for school buildings and\r\ntheir physical equipment. But systematic expenditure\r\nof public funds for scientific inquiry into the conditions\r\nwhich affect the mental and moral development of\r\nchildren is just beginning, and demands for a large increase\r\nin this direction are looked upon askance.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAgain, it is reported that there are more beds in hospitals\r\nand asylums for cases of mental disturbance and\r\nretardation than for all diseases combined. The public\r\npays generously to take care of the results of bad\r\nconditions. But there is no comparable attention and\r\nwillingness to expend funds to investigate the causes of\r\nthese troubles. The reason for these anomalies is\r\nevident enough. There is no conviction that the\r\nsciences of human nature are far enough advanced to\r\nmake public support of such activities worth while. A\r\nmarked development of psychology and kindred subjects\r\nwould change this situation. And we have been\r\nspeaking only of antecedent conditions of education.\r\nTo complete the picture we have to realize the difference\r\nwhich would be made in the methods of parents\r\nand teachers were there an adequate and generally\r\nshared knowledge of human nature.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut such an educational development, though intrinsically\r\nprecious to the last degree, would not entail\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_199\"\u003e199\u003c/span\u003e\r\na control of human energies comparable to that which\r\nalready obtains of physical energies. To imagine that\r\nit would is simply to reduce human beings to the plane\r\nof inanimate things mechanically manipulated from\r\nwithout; it makes human education something like the\r\ntraining of fleas, dogs and horses. What stands in the\r\nway is not anything called “free-will,” but the fact\r\nthat such a change in educational methods would release\r\nnew potentialities, capable of all kinds of permutations\r\nand combinations, which would then modify social\r\nphenomena, while this modification would in its turn\r\naffect human nature and its educative transformation\r\nin a continuous and endless procession.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe assimilation of human science to physical science\r\nrepresents, in other words, only another form of absolutistic\r\nlogic, a kind of physical absolutism. We are\r\ndoubtless but at the beginning of the possibilities of\r\ncontrol of the physical conditions of mental and moral\r\nlife. Physiological chemistry, increased knowledge of\r\nthe nervous system, of the processes and functions of\r\nglandular secretions, may in time enable us to deal\r\nwith phenomena of emotional and intellectual disturbance\r\nbefore which mankind has been helpless. But\r\ncontrol of these conditions will not determine the uses\r\nto which human beings will put their normalized potentialities.\r\nIf any one supposes that it will, let him consider\r\nthe applications of such remedial or preventive\r\nmeasures to a man in a state of savage culture and one\r\nin a modern community. Each, as long as the conditions\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_200\"\u003e200\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof the social medium remained substantially unaltered,\r\nwill still have his experience and the direction\r\nof his restored energies affected by the objects\r\nand instrumentalities of the human environment, and\r\nby what men at the time currently prize and hold\r\ndear. The warrior and merchant would be better warriors\r\nand merchants, more efficient, but warriors and\r\nmerchants still.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThese considerations suggest a brief discussion of\r\nthe effect of the present absolutistic logic upon the\r\nmethod and aims of education, not just in the sense\r\nof schooling but with respect to all the ways in which\r\ncommunities attempt to shape the disposition and beliefs\r\nof their members. Even when the processes of\r\neducation do not aim at the unchanged perpetuation\r\nof existing institutions, it is assumed that there must\r\nbe a mental picture of some desired end, personal and\r\nsocial, which is to be attained, and that this conception\r\nof a fixed determinate end ought to control educative\r\nprocesses. Reformers share this conviction with conservatives.\r\nThe disciples of Lenin and Mussolini vie\r\nwith the captains of capitalistic society in endeavoring\r\nto bring about a formation of dispositions and ideas\r\nwhich will conduce to a preconceived goal. If there\r\nis a difference, it is that the former proceed more\r\nconsciously. An experimental social method would\r\nprobably manifest itself first of all in surrender of\r\nthis notion. Every care would be taken to surround\r\nthe young with the physical and social conditions which\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_201\"\u003e201\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbest conduce, as far as freed knowledge extends,\r\nto release of personal potentialities. The habits thus\r\nformed would have entrusted to them the meeting of\r\nfuture social requirements and the development of the\r\nfuture state of society. Then and then only would all\r\nsocial agencies that are available operate as resources\r\nin behalf of a bettered community life.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat we have termed the absolutistic logic ends, as\r\nfar as method in social matters is concerned, in a substitution\r\nof discussion of concepts and their logical relations\r\nto one another for inquiry. Whatever form it\r\nassumes, it results in strengthening the reign of dogma.\r\nTheir contents may vary, but dogma persists. At the\r\noutset we noted in discussion of the state the influence\r\nof methods which look for causal forces. Long ago,\r\nphysical science abandoned this method and took up\r\nthat of detection of correlation of events. Our\r\nlanguage and our thinking is still saturated with the\r\nidea of laws which phenomena “obey.” But in his\r\nactual procedures, the scientific inquirer into physical\r\nevents treats a law simply as a stable correlation of\r\nchanges in what happens, a statement of the way in\r\nwhich one phenomenon, or some aspect or phase of it,\r\nvaries when some other specified phenomenon varies.\r\n“Causation” is an affair of historical sequence, of the\r\norder in which a series of changes takes place. To\r\nknow cause and effect is to know, in the abstract, the\r\nformula of correlation in change, and, in the concrete,\r\na certain historical career of sequential events. The\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_202\"\u003e202\u003c/span\u003e\r\nappeal to causal forces at large not only misleads inquiry\r\ninto social facts, but it affects equally seriously\r\nthe formation of purposes and policies. The person\r\nwho holds the doctrine of “individualism” or “collectivism”\r\nhas his program determined for him in advance.\r\nIt is not with him a matter of finding out the particular\r\nthing which needs to be done and the best way,\r\nunder the circumstances, of doing it. It is an affair\r\nof applying a hard and fast doctrine which follows\r\nlogically from his preconception of the nature of\r\nultimate causes. He is exempt from the responsibility\r\nof discovering the concrete correlation of\r\nchanges, from the need of tracing particular sequences\r\nor histories of events through their complicated\r\ncareers. He knows in advance the sort of thing which\r\nmust be done, just as in ancient physical philosophy\r\nthe thinker knew in advance what must happen, so that\r\nall he had to do was to supply a logical framework of\r\ndefinitions and classifications.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhen we say that thinking and beliefs should be experimental,\r\nnot absolutistic, we have then in mind a\r\ncertain logic of method, not, primarily, the carrying\r\non of experimentation like that of laboratories. Such\r\na logic involves the following factors: First, that those\r\nconcepts, general principles, theories and dialectical\r\ndevelopments which are indispensable to any systematic\r\nknowledge be shaped and tested as tools of inquiry.\r\nSecondly, that policies and proposals for social action\r\nbe treated as working hypotheses, not as programs to\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_203\"\u003e203\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbe rigidly adhered to and executed. They will be experimental\r\nin the sense that they will be entertained\r\nsubject to constant and well-equipped observation of\r\nthe consequences they entail when acted upon, and subject\r\nto ready and flexible revision in the light of observed\r\nconsequences. The social sciences, if these two\r\nstipulations are fulfilled, will then be an apparatus for\r\nconducting investigation, and for recording and interpreting\r\n(organizing) its results. The apparatus will\r\nno longer be taken to be itself knowledge, but will be\r\nseen to be intellectual means of making discoveries of\r\nphenomena having social import and understanding\r\ntheir meaning. Differences of opinion in the sense of\r\ndifferences of judgment as to the course which it is\r\nbest to follow, the policy which it is best to try out,\r\nwill still exist. But opinion in the sense of beliefs\r\nformed and held in the absence of evidence will be reduced\r\nin quantity and importance. No longer will\r\nviews generated in view of special situations be frozen\r\ninto absolute standards and masquerade as eternal\r\ntruths.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis phase of the discussion may be concluded by\r\nconsideration of the relation of experts to a democratic\r\npublic. A negative phase of the earlier argument for\r\npolitical democracy has largely lost its force. For it\r\nwas based upon hostility to dynastic and oligarchic\r\naristocracies, and these have largely been bereft of\r\npower. The oligarchy which now dominates is that of\r\nan economic class. It claims to rule, not in virtue of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_204\"\u003e204\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbirth and hereditary status, but in virtue of ability in\r\nmanagement and of the burden of social responsibilities\r\nwhich it carries, in virtue of the position which\r\nsuperior abilities have conferred upon it. At all\r\nevents, it is a shifting, unstable oligarchy, rapidly\r\nchanging its constituents, who are more or less at the\r\nmercy of accidents they cannot control and of technological\r\ninventions. Consequently, the shoe is now on\r\nthe other foot. It is argued that the check upon the\r\noppressive power of this particular oligarchy lies in\r\nan intellectual aristocracy, not in appeal to an ignorant,\r\nfickle mass whose interests are superficial and\r\ntrivial, and whose judgments are saved from incredible\r\nlevity only when weighted down by heavy prejudice.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt may be argued that the democratic movement was\r\nessentially transitional. It marked the passage from\r\nfeudal institutions to industrialism, and was coincident\r\nwith the transfer of power from landed proprietors,\r\nallied to churchly authorities, to captains of industry,\r\nunder conditions which involved an emancipation of the\r\nmasses from legal limitations which had previously\r\nhemmed them in. But, so it is contended in effect, it is\r\nabsurd to convert this legal liberation into a dogma\r\nwhich alleges that release from old oppressions confers\r\nupon those emancipated the intellectual and moral\r\nqualities which fit them for sharing in regulation of\r\naffairs of state. The essential fallacy of the democratic\r\ncreed, it is urged, is the notion that a historic\r\nmovement which effected an important and desirable\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_205\"\u003e205\u003c/span\u003e\r\nrelease from restrictions is either a source or a proof\r\nof capacity in those thus emancipated to rule, when in\r\nfact there is no factor common in the two things. The\r\nobvious alternative is rule by those intellectually qualified,\r\nby expert intellectuals.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis revival of the Platonic notion that philosophers\r\nshould be kings is the more taking because the idea of\r\nexperts is substituted for that of philosophers, since\r\nphilosophy has become something of a joke, while the\r\nimage of the specialist, the expert in operation, is\r\nrendered familiar and congenial by the rise of the\r\nphysical sciences and by the conduct of industry. A\r\ncynic might indeed say that the notion is a pipe-dream,\r\na revery entertained by the intellectual class in compensation\r\nfor an impotence consequent upon the\r\ndivorce of theory and practice, upon the remoteness of\r\nspecialized science from the affairs of life: the gulf\r\nbeing bridged not by the intellectuals but by inventors\r\nand engineers hired by captains of industry. One approaches\r\nthe truth more nearly when one says that the\r\nargument proves too much for its own cause. If the\r\nmasses are as intellectually irredeemable as its premise\r\nimplies, they at all events have both too many desires\r\nand too much power to permit rule by experts to obtain.\r\nThe very ignorance, bias, frivolity, jealousy,\r\ninstability, which are alleged to incapacitate them from\r\nshare in political affairs, unfit them still more for passive\r\nsubmission to rule by intellectuals. Rule by an\r\neconomic class may be disguised from the masses; rule\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_206\"\u003e206\u003c/span\u003e\r\nby experts could not be covered up. It could be made\r\nto work only if the intellectuals became the willing\r\ntools of big economic interests. Otherwise they would\r\nhave to ally themselves with the masses, and that implies,\r\nonce more, a share in government by the latter.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eA more serious objection is that expertness is most\r\nreadily attained in specialized technical matters, matters\r\nof administration and execution which postulate\r\nthat general policies are already satisfactorily framed.\r\nIt is assumed that the policies of the experts are in the\r\nmain both wise and benevolent, that is, framed to conserve\r\nthe genuine interests of society. The final obstacle\r\nin the way of any aristocratic rule is that in the\r\nabsence of an articulate voice on the part of the\r\nmasses, the best do not and cannot remain the best, the\r\nwise cease to be wise. It is impossible for high-brows\r\nto secure a monopoly of such knowledge as must be used\r\nfor the regulation of common affairs. In the degree\r\nin which they become a specialized class, they are shut\r\noff from knowledge of the needs which they are supposed\r\nto serve.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe strongest point to be made in behalf of even\r\nsuch rudimentary political forms as democracy has already\r\nattained, popular voting, majority rule and so\r\non, is that to some extent they involve a consultation\r\nand discussion which uncover social needs and troubles.\r\nThis fact is the great asset on the side of the political\r\nledger. De Tocqueville wrote it down almost a century\r\nago in his survey of the prospects of democracy\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_207\"\u003e207\u003c/span\u003e\r\nin the United States. Accusing a democracy of a\r\ntendency to prefer mediocrity in its elected rulers, and\r\nadmitting its exposure to gusts of passion and its\r\nopenness to folly, he pointed out in effect that popular\r\ngovernment is educative as other modes of political\r\nregulation are not. It forces a recognition that there\r\nare common interests, even though the recognition of\r\nwhat they are is confused; and the need it enforces of\r\ndiscussion and publicity brings about some clarification\r\nof what they are. The man who wears the shoe\r\nknows best that it pinches and where it pinches, even\r\nif the expert shoemaker is the best judge of how the\r\ntrouble is to be remedied. Popular government has at\r\nleast created public spirit even if its success in informing\r\nthat spirit has not been great.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eA class of experts is inevitably so removed from\r\ncommon interests as to become a class with private interests\r\nand private knowledge, which in social matters\r\nis not knowledge at all. The ballot is, as often said,\r\na substitute for bullets. But what is more significant\r\nis that counting of heads compels prior recourse to\r\nmethods of discussion, consultation and persuasion,\r\nwhile the essence of appeal to force is to cut short\r\nresort to such methods. Majority rule, just as\r\nmajority rule, is as foolish as its critics charge it\r\nwith being. But it never is \u003cem\u003emerely\u003c/em\u003e majority rule.\r\nAs a practical politician, Samuel J. Tilden, said a long\r\ntime ago: “The means by which a majority comes to be\r\na majority is the more important thing”: antecedent debates,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_208\"\u003e208\u003c/span\u003e\r\nmodification of views to meet the opinions of\r\nminorities, the relative satisfaction given the latter by\r\nthe fact that it has had a chance and that next time\r\nit may be successful in becoming a majority. Think of\r\nthe meaning of the “problem of minorities” in certain\r\nEuropean states, and compare it with the status of\r\nminorities in countries having popular government. It\r\nis true that all valuable as well as new ideas begin with\r\nminorities, perhaps a minority of one. The important\r\nconsideration is that opportunity be given that idea\r\nto spread and to become the possession of the multitude.\r\nNo government by experts in which the masses\r\ndo not have the chance to inform the experts as to\r\ntheir needs can be anything but an oligarchy managed\r\nin the interests of the few. And the enlightenment\r\nmust proceed in ways which force the administrative\r\nspecialists to take account of the needs. The world has\r\nsuffered more from leaders and authorities than from\r\nthe masses.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe essential need, in other words, is the improvement\r\nof the methods and conditions of debate, discussion\r\nand persuasion. That is \u003cem\u003ethe\u003c/em\u003e problem of the public.\r\nWe have asserted that this improvement depends essentially\r\nupon freeing and perfecting the processes of inquiry\r\nand of dissemination of their conclusions. Inquiry,\r\nindeed, is a work which devolves upon experts.\r\nBut their expertness is not shown in framing and executing\r\npolicies, but in discovering and making known the\r\nfacts upon which the former depend. They are technical\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_209\"\u003e209\u003c/span\u003e\r\nexperts in the sense that scientific investigators\r\nand artists manifest \u003cem\u003eexpertise\u003c/em\u003e. It is not necessary\r\nthat the many should have the knowledge and skill to\r\ncarry on the needed investigations; what is required is\r\nthat they have the ability to judge of the bearing of\r\nthe knowledge supplied by others upon common concerns.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is easy to exaggerate the amount of intelligence\r\nand ability demanded to render such judgments\r\nfitted for their purpose. In the first place, we are\r\nlikely to form our estimate on the basis of present conditions.\r\nBut indubitably one great trouble at present\r\nis that the data for good judgment are lacking; and\r\nno innate faculty of mind can make up for the absence\r\nof facts. Until secrecy, prejudice, bias, misrepresentation,\r\nand propaganda as well as sheer ignorance are\r\nreplaced by inquiry and publicity, we have no way of\r\ntelling how apt for judgment of social policies the existing\r\nintelligence of the masses may be. It would certainly\r\ngo much further than at present. In the second\r\nplace, \u003cem\u003eeffective\u003c/em\u003e intelligence is not an original, innate endowment.\r\nNo matter what are the differences in native\r\nintelligence (allowing for the moment that intelligence\r\ncan be native), the actuality of mind is dependent upon\r\nthe education which social conditions effect. Just as\r\nthe specialized mind and knowledge of the past is\r\nembodied in implements, utensils, devices and technologies\r\nwhich those of a grade of intelligence which could\r\nnot produce them can now intelligently use, so it will be\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_210\"\u003e210\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwhen currents of public knowledge blow through social\r\naffairs.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe level of action fixed by \u003cem\u003eembodied\u003c/em\u003e intelligence is\r\nalways the important thing. In savage culture a superior\r\nman will be superior to his fellows, but his\r\nknowledge and judgment will lag in many matters far\r\nbehind that of an inferiorly endowed person in an advanced\r\ncivilization. Capacities are limited by the objects\r\nand tools at hand. They are still more dependent\r\nupon the prevailing habits of attention and interest\r\nwhich are set by tradition and institutional customs.\r\nMeanings run in the channels formed by instrumentalities\r\nof which, in the end, language, the vehicle of\r\nthought as well as of communication, is the most important.\r\nA mechanic can discourse of ohms and amperes\r\nas Sir Isaac Newton could not in his day. Many a\r\nman who has tinkered with radios can judge of things\r\nwhich Faraday did not dream of. It is aside from the\r\npoint to say that if Newton and Faraday were now\r\nhere, the amateur and mechanic would be infants beside\r\nthem. The retort only brings out the point: the difference\r\nmade by different objects to think of and by\r\ndifferent meanings in circulation. A more intelligent\r\nstate of social affairs, one more informed with knowledge,\r\nmore directed by intelligence, would not improve\r\noriginal endowments one whit, but it would raise the\r\nlevel upon which the intelligence of all operates. The\r\nheight of this level is much more important for judgment\r\nof public concerns than are differences in intelligence\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_211\"\u003e211\u003c/span\u003e\r\nquotients. As Santayana has said: “Could a\r\nbetter system prevail in our lives a better order would\r\nestablish itself in our thinking. It has not been for\r\nwant of keen senses, or personal genius, or a constant\r\norder in the outer world, that mankind has fallen back\r\nrepeatedly into barbarism and superstition. It has\r\nbeen for want of good character, good example, and\r\ngood government.” The notion that intelligence is a\r\npersonal endowment or personal attainment is the\r\ngreat conceit of the intellectual class, as that of the\r\ncommercial class is that wealth is something which\r\nthey personally have wrought and possess.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eA point which concerns us in conclusion passes beyond\r\nthe field of intellectual method, and trenches\r\nupon the question of practical re-formation of social\r\nconditions. In its deepest and richest sense a community\r\nmust always remain a matter of face-to-face\r\nintercourse. This is why the family and neighborhood,\r\nwith all their deficiencies, have always been the chief\r\nagencies of nurture, the means by which dispositions\r\nare stably formed and ideas acquired which laid hold\r\non the roots of character. The Great Community, in\r\nthe sense of free and full intercommunication, is conceivable.\r\nBut it can never possess all the qualities\r\nwhich mark a local community. It will do its final\r\nwork in ordering the relations and enriching the experience\r\nof local associations. The invasion and partial\r\ndestruction of the life of the latter by outside\r\nuncontrolled agencies is the immediate source of the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_212\"\u003e212\u003c/span\u003e\r\ninstability, disintegration and restlessness which characterize\r\nthe present epoch. Evils which are uncritically\r\nand indiscriminately laid at the door of\r\nindustrialism and democracy might, with greater\r\nintelligence, be referred to the dislocation and unsettlement\r\nof local communities. Vital and thorough attachments\r\nare bred only in the intimacy of an intercourse\r\nwhich is of necessity restricted in range.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIs it possible for local communities to be stable\r\nwithout being static, progressive without being\r\nmerely mobile? Can the vast, innumerable and\r\nintricate currents of trans-local associations be so\r\nbanked and conducted that they will pour the generous\r\nand abundant meanings of which they are potential\r\nbearers into the smaller intimate unions of human beings\r\nliving in immediate contact with one another? Is\r\nit possible to restore the reality of the lesser communal\r\norganizations and to penetrate and saturate their\r\nmembers with a sense of local community life? There\r\nis at present, at least in theory, a movement away from\r\nthe principle of territorial organization to that of\r\n“functional,” that is to say, occupational, organization.\r\nIt is true enough that older forms of territorial\r\nassociation do not satisfy present needs. It is true\r\nthat ties formed by sharing in common work, whether\r\nin what is called industry or what are called professions,\r\nhave now a force which formerly they did not\r\npossess. But these ties can be counted upon for an enduring\r\nand stable organization, which at the same time\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_213\"\u003e213\u003c/span\u003e\r\nis flexible and moving, only as they grow out of immediate\r\nintercourse and attachment. The theory, as far\r\nas it relies upon associations which are remote and indirect,\r\nwould if carried into effect soon be confronted\r\nby all the troubles and evils of the present situation in\r\na transposed form. There is no substitute for the vitality\r\nand depth of close and direct intercourse and\r\nattachment.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is said, and said truly, that for the world’s peace\r\nit is necessary that we understand the peoples of foreign\r\nlands. How well do we understand, I wonder, our\r\nnext door neighbors? It has also been said that if a\r\nman love not his fellow man whom he has seen, he cannot\r\nlove the God whom he has not seen. The chances\r\nof regard for distant peoples being effective as long as\r\nthere is no close neighborhood experience to bring\r\nwith it insight and understanding of neighbors do not\r\nseem better. A man who has not been seen in the daily\r\nrelations of life may inspire admiration, emulation,\r\nservile subjection, fanatical partisanship, hero worship;\r\nbut not love and understanding, save as they\r\nradiate from the attachments of a near-by union.\r\nDemocracy must begin at home, and its home is the\r\nneighborly community.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is outside the scope of our discussion to look into\r\nthe prospects of the reconstruction of face-to-face\r\ncommunities. But there is something deep within human\r\nnature itself which pulls toward settled relationships.\r\nInertia and the tendency toward stability\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_214\"\u003e214\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbelong to emotions and desires as well as to masses\r\nand molecules. That happiness which is full of content\r\nand peace is found only in enduring ties with\r\nothers, which reach to such depths that they go below\r\nthe surface of conscious experience to form its undisturbed\r\nfoundation. No one knows how much of the\r\nfrothy excitement of life, of mania for motion, of fretful\r\ndiscontent, of need for artificial stimulation, is the\r\nexpression of frantic search for something to fill the\r\nvoid caused by the loosening of the bonds which hold\r\npersons together in immediate community of experience.\r\nIf there is anything in human psychology to be\r\ncounted upon, it may be urged that when man is satiated\r\nwith restless seeking for the remote which yields no\r\nenduring satisfaction, the human spirit will return to\r\nseek calm and order within itself. This, we repeat,\r\ncan be found only in the vital, steady, and deep relationships\r\nwhich are present only in an immediate community.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe psychological tendency can, however, manifest\r\nitself only when it is in harmonious conjunction with\r\nthe objective course of events. Analysis finds itself\r\nin troubled waters if it attempts to discover whether\r\nthe tide of events is turning away from dispersion of\r\nenergies and acceleration of motion. Physically and\r\nexternally, conditions have made, of course, for concentration;\r\nthe development of urban, at the expense of\r\nrural, populations; the corporate organization of aggregated\r\nwealth, the growth of all sorts of organizations,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_215\"\u003e215\u003c/span\u003e\r\nare evidence enough. But enormous organization\r\nis compatible with demolition of the ties that form\r\nlocal communities and with substitution of impersonal\r\nbonds for personal unions, with a flux which\r\nis hostile to stability. The character of our cities, of\r\norganized business and the nature of the comprehensive\r\nassociations in which individuality is lost, testify also\r\nto this fact. Yet there are contrary signs. “Community”\r\nand community activities are becoming words\r\nto conjure with. The local is the ultimate universal,\r\nand as near an absolute as exists. It is easy to point\r\nto many signs which indicate that unconscious agencies\r\nas well as deliberate planning are making for such an\r\nenrichment of the experience of local communities as\r\nwill conduce to render them genuine centers of the\r\nattention, interest and devotion for their constituent\r\nmembers.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe unanswered question is how far these tendencies\r\nwill reëstablish the void left by the disintegration of the\r\nfamily, church and neighborhood. We cannot predict\r\nthe outcome. But we can assert with confidence that\r\nthere is nothing intrinsic in the forces which have\r\neffected uniform standardization, mobility and remote\r\ninvisible relationships that is fatally obstructive to the\r\nreturn movement of their consequences into the local\r\nhomes of mankind. Uniformity and standardization\r\nmay provide an underlying basis for differentiation and\r\nliberation of individual potentialities. They may sink\r\nto the plane of unconscious habituations, taken for\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_216\"\u003e216\u003c/span\u003e\r\ngranted in the mechanical phases of life, and deposit a\r\nsoil from which personal susceptibilities and endowments\r\nmay richly and stably flower. Mobility may in the\r\nend supply the means by which the spoils of remote\r\nand indirect interaction and interdependence flow back\r\ninto local life, keeping it flexible, preventing the\r\nstagnancy which has attended stability in the past,\r\nand furnishing it with the elements of a variegated\r\nand many-hued experience. Organization may cease\r\nto be taken as an end in itself. Then it will no longer\r\nbe mechanical and external, hampering the free play of\r\nartistic gifts, fettering men and women with chains of\r\nconformity, conducing to abdication of all which does\r\nnot fit into the automatic movement of organization as\r\na self-sufficing thing. Organization as a means to an\r\nend would reënforce individuality and enable it to be\r\nsecurely itself by enduing it with resources beyond its\r\nunaided reach.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhatever the future may have in store, one thing is\r\ncertain. Unless local communal life can be restored,\r\nthe public cannot adequately resolve its most urgent\r\nproblem: to find and identify itself. But if it be re-established,\r\nit will manifest a fullness, variety and\r\nfreedom of possession and enjoyment of meanings and\r\ngoods unknown in the contiguous associations of the\r\npast. For it will be alive and flexible as well as stable,\r\nresponsive to the complex and world-wide scene in\r\nwhich it is enmeshed. While local, it will not be\r\nisolated. Its larger relationships will provide an exhaustible\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_217\"\u003e217\u003c/span\u003e\r\nand flowing fund of meanings upon which to\r\ndraw, with assurance that its drafts will be honored.\r\nTerritorial states and political boundaries will persist;\r\nbut they will not be barriers which impoverish experience\r\nby cutting man off from his fellows; they will\r\nnot be hard and fast divisions whereby external separation\r\nis converted into inner jealousy, fear, suspicion\r\nand hostility. Competition will continue, but it will be\r\nless rivalry for acquisition of material goods, and more\r\nan emulation of local groups to enrich direct experience\r\nwith appreciatively enjoyed intellectual and artistic\r\nwealth. If the technological age can provide mankind\r\nwith a firm and general basis of material security, it\r\nwill be absorbed in a humane age. It will take its\r\nplace as an instrumentality of shared and communicated\r\nexperience. But without passage through a\r\nmachine age, mankind’s hold upon what is needful as\r\nthe precondition of a free, flexible and many-colored\r\nlife is so precarious and inequitable that competitive\r\nscramble for acquisition and frenzied use of the results\r\nof acquisition for purposes of excitation and display\r\nwill be perpetuated.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe have said that consideration of this particular\r\ncondition of the generation of democratic communities\r\nand an articulate democratic public carries us beyond\r\nthe question of intellectual method into that of practical\r\nprocedure. But the two questions are not disconnected.\r\nThe problem of securing diffused and\r\nseminal intelligence can be solved only in the degree\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_218\"\u003e218\u003c/span\u003e\r\nin which local communal life becomes a reality. Signs\r\nand symbols, language, are the means of communication\r\nby which a fraternally shared experience is ushered\r\nin and sustained. But the wingèd words of conversation\r\nin immediate intercourse have a vital import lacking\r\nin the fixed and frozen words of written speech.\r\nSystematic and continuous inquiry into all the conditions\r\nwhich affect association and their dissemination\r\nin print is a precondition of the creation of a true\r\npublic. But it and its results are but tools after all.\r\nTheir final actuality is accomplished in face-to-face\r\nrelationships by means of direct give and take. Logic\r\nin its fulfillment recurs to the primitive sense of the\r\nword: dialogue. Ideas which are not communicated,\r\nshared, and reborn in expression are but soliloquy, and\r\nsoliloquy is but broken and imperfect thought. It, like\r\nthe acquisition of material wealth, marks a diversion of\r\nthe wealth created by associated endeavor and exchange\r\nto private ends. It is more genteel, and it is called\r\nmore noble. But there is no difference in kind.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn a word, that expansion and reënforcement of personal\r\nunderstanding and judgment by the cumulative\r\nand transmitted intellectual wealth of the community\r\nwhich may render nugatory the indictment of\r\ndemocracy drawn on the basis of the ignorance, bias\r\nand levity of the masses, can be fulfilled only in the relations\r\nof personal intercourse in the local community.\r\nThe connections of the ear with vital and out-going\r\nthought and emotion are immensely closer and more\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_219\"\u003e219\u003c/span\u003e\r\nvaried than those of the eye. Vision is a spectator;\r\nhearing is a participator. Publication is partial and\r\nthe public which results is partially informed and\r\nformed until the meanings it purveys pass from mouth\r\nto mouth. There is no limit to the liberal expansion\r\nand confirmation of limited personal intellectual endowment\r\nwhich may proceed from the flow of social\r\nintelligence when that circulates by word of mouth\r\nfrom one to another in the communications of the local\r\ncommunity. That and that only gives reality to public\r\nopinion. We lie, as Emerson said, in the lap of an\r\nimmense intelligence. But that intelligence is dormant\r\nand its communications are broken, inarticulate and\r\nfaint until it possesses the local community as its\r\nmedium.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap x-ebookmaker-drop\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"footnotes\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_221\"\u003e221\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch2 class=\"nobreak\" id=\"FOOTNOTES\"\u003eFOOTNOTES\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn1\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_1\" href=\"#FNanchor_1\" class=\"label\"\u003e1\u003c/a\u003e W.\u0026nbsp;H. Hudson, “A Traveller in Little Things,” pp. 110–112.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn1\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_2\" href=\"#FNanchor_2\" class=\"label\"\u003e2\u003c/a\u003e Judges make rules of law. On the “will” theory this is an\r\nencroachment on the legislative function. Not so, if the judges\r\nfurther define conditions of action.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn1\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_3\" href=\"#FNanchor_3\" class=\"label\"\u003e3\u003c/a\u003e “A Treatise on Human Nature,” Part II, sec. vii.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn1\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_4\" href=\"#FNanchor_4\" class=\"label\"\u003e4\u003c/a\u003e Hocking, “Man and the State,” p. 51.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn1\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_5\" href=\"#FNanchor_5\" class=\"label\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e Ayers, “Science: The False Messiah,” Chapter IV, The Lure\r\nof Machinery.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn1\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_6\" href=\"#FNanchor_6\" class=\"label\"\u003e6\u003c/a\u003e The one obvious exception concerns the tools of waging war.\r\nWith respect to them, the state has often shown itself as greedy\r\nas it has been reluctant and behindhand with reference to other\r\ninventions.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn1\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_7\" href=\"#FNanchor_7\" class=\"label\"\u003e7\u003c/a\u003e This is a convenient place for making explicit a qualification\r\nwhich has to be understood throughout but which is slighted\r\nin the text. The words “government” and “officers” are taken\r\nfunctionally, not in terms of some particular structure which\r\nis so familiar to us that it leaps to the eyes when these words\r\nare used. Both words in their functional meaning are much\r\nwider in application than what is meant when we speak, say,\r\nof the government and officers of Great Britain or the United\r\nStates. In households, for example, there have usually been rule\r\nand “heads”; the parents, for most purposes the father, have been\r\nofficers of the family interest. The “patriarchal family” presents\r\nan emphatic intensification, on account of comparative isolation\r\nof the household from other social forms, of what exists in lesser\r\ndegree in almost all families. The same sort of remark applies\r\nto the use of the term “states,” in connection with publics. The\r\ntext is concerned with modern conditions, but the hypothesis propounded\r\nis meant to hold good generally. So to the patent\r\nobjection that the state is a very modern institution, it is replied\r\nthat while modernity is a property of those \u003cem\u003estructures\u003c/em\u003e which go\r\nby the name of states, yet all history, or almost all, records the\r\nexercise of analogous \u003cem\u003efunctions\u003c/em\u003e. The argument concerns these\r\nfunctions and the mode of their operation, no matter what word\r\nbe used, though for the sake of brevity the word “state,” like the\r\nwords “government” and “officer,” has been freely employed.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn1\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_8\" href=\"#FNanchor_8\" class=\"label\"\u003e8\u003c/a\u003e This last position promptly called forth a protest from the\r\nhead of the utilitarian school, Jeremy Bentham.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn1\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_9\" href=\"#FNanchor_9\" class=\"label\"\u003e9\u003c/a\u003e C.\u0026nbsp;H. Cooley, “Social Organization,” Ch. iii, on “Primary\r\nGroups.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn2\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_10\" href=\"#FNanchor_10\" class=\"label\"\u003e10\u003c/a\u003e See Walter Lippmann’s “The Phantom Public.” To this as\r\nwell as to his “Public Opinion,” I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness,\r\nnot only as to this particular point, but for ideas\r\ninvolved in my entire discussion even when it reaches conclusions\r\ndiverging from his.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn2\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_11\" href=\"#FNanchor_11\" class=\"label\"\u003e11\u003c/a\u003e The most adequate discussion of this ideal with which I am\r\nacquainted is T.\u0026nbsp;V. Smith’s “The Democratic Way of Life.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn2\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_12\" href=\"#FNanchor_12\" class=\"label\"\u003e12\u003c/a\u003e The religious character of nationalism has been forcibly\r\nbrought out by Carleton Hayes, in his “Essays on Nationalism,”\r\nespecially Chap. IV.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn2\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_13\" href=\"#FNanchor_13\" class=\"label\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e J.\u0026nbsp;S. Mill, Logic, Book VI, ch. 7, sec. I. Italics mine.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"index\"\u003e\r\n\u003ch2 class=\"nobreak\" id=\"toclink_221\"\u003eINDEX\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cul class=\"index\"\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"ifrst\"\u003eAbsolutism, in method, \u003ca href=\"#Page_194\"\u003e194–202\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eAmusements, rivals to political interest, \u003ca href=\"#Page_139\"\u003e139\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eAnarchism, \u003ca href=\"#Page_26\"\u003e26\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eAristotle, \u003ca href=\"#Page_4\"\u003e4\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_8\"\u003e8\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_138\"\u003e138\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eArt, of communication, \u003ca href=\"#Page_182\"\u003e182–84\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Association\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eAssociation, a universal fact, \u003ca href=\"#Page_22\"\u003e22–23\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_34\"\u003e34\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_151\"\u003e151\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_181\"\u003e181\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003edistinctive traits of human, \u003ca href=\"#Page_24\"\u003e24\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003erevolt against, \u003ca href=\"#Page_88\"\u003e88\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_98\"\u003e98–100\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eeconomic, \u003ca href=\"#Page_105\"\u003e105–07\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand democracy, \u003ca href=\"#Page_143\"\u003e143\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003erigid and flexible, \u003ca href=\"#Page_148\"\u003e148\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003edistinguished from community, \u003ca href=\"#Page_151\"\u003e151–53\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003edomination of isolated, \u003ca href=\"#Page_194\"\u003e194\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eterritorial and functional, \u003ca href=\"#Page_212\"\u003e212–13\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eSee \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Community\"\u003eCommunity\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e, \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Groups\"\u003eGroups\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e, \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Society\"\u003eSociety\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eAttachment, a political need, \u003ca href=\"#Page_140\"\u003e140\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_214\"\u003e214\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eAyers, C.\u0026nbsp;E., \u003ca href=\"#Page_59\"\u003e59\u003c/a\u003e n.\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"ifrst\"\u003eBentham, J., \u003ca href=\"#Page_54\"\u003e54\u003c/a\u003e n.\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eBiological, and social, \u003ca href=\"#Page_11\"\u003e11–12\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_152\"\u003e152\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_195\"\u003e195\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eBusiness, rival to political interest, \u003ca href=\"#Page_138\"\u003e138\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003epolitical control by, \u003ca href=\"#Page_182\"\u003e182\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eSee \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Economic_Forces\"\u003eEconomic Forces\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"ifrst\"\u003eCarlyle, T., \u003ca href=\"#Page_102\"\u003e102\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_110\"\u003e110\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Causal_forces\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eCausal forces, and state, \u003ca href=\"#Page_9\"\u003e9\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_17\"\u003e17–21\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_25\"\u003e25\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_36\"\u003e36\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_37\"\u003e37\u003c/a\u003e,\r\n \u003ca href=\"#Page_47\"\u003e47\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_53\"\u003e53\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_65\"\u003e65\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_66\"\u003e66\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eversus the causal order, \u003ca href=\"#Page_201\"\u003e201–02\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eChild Labor Amendment, \u003ca href=\"#Page_121\"\u003e121\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eCommon Interest, nature of, \u003ca href=\"#Page_17\"\u003e17\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_34\"\u003e34–35\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eSee \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Consequences\"\u003eConsequences\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Public\"\u003ePublic\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Communication\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eCommunication, a public function, \u003ca href=\"#Page_60\"\u003e60\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_208\"\u003e208\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003esocial necessity of, \u003ca href=\"#Page_152\"\u003e152\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_217\"\u003e217–19\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003enecessary to knowledge, \u003ca href=\"#Page_176\"\u003e176–79\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003ean art, \u003ca href=\"#Page_182\"\u003e182–84\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eSee \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Symbols\"\u003eSymbols\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Community\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eCommunity, \u003ca href=\"#Page_38\"\u003e38\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand society, \u003ca href=\"#Page_98\"\u003e98\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_157\"\u003e157\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003econditioning wants, \u003ca href=\"#Page_105\"\u003e105–06\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand communication, \u003ca href=\"#Page_152\"\u003e152–54\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eimportance of local, \u003ca href=\"#Page_211\"\u003e211–19\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eSee \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Great_Society\"\u003eGreat Society\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eComparative Method, \u003ca href=\"#Page_47\"\u003e47\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eConjoint Behavior, see \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Association\"\u003eAssociation\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eConscience, private, origin of, \u003ca href=\"#Page_49\"\u003e49–50\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Consequences\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eConsequences, importance of for politics, \u003ca href=\"#Page_12\"\u003e12–13\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_15\"\u003e15\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_17\"\u003e17\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_24\"\u003e24–25\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_27\"\u003e27\u003c/a\u003e,\r\n \u003ca href=\"#Page_32\"\u003e32\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_39\"\u003e39\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_43\"\u003e43\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_47\"\u003e47\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_65\"\u003e65\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_126\"\u003e126\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_156\"\u003e156\u003c/a\u003e,\r\n \u003ca href=\"#Page_197\"\u003e197\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eeffect of expansion, \u003ca href=\"#Page_47\"\u003e47–57\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand rules of law, \u003ca href=\"#Page_56\"\u003e56\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eeffect of enduring, \u003ca href=\"#Page_57\"\u003e57–62\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eeffect of irreparable, \u003ca href=\"#Page_62\"\u003e62–64\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003erelation to state and government, \u003ca href=\"#Page_66\"\u003e66–69\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eto antithesis of individual and social, \u003ca href=\"#Page_193\"\u003e193\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eControl, political, \u003ca href=\"#Page_12\"\u003e12\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_16\"\u003e16\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eof human nature, \u003ca href=\"#Page_197\"\u003e197–99\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eCooley, C.\u0026nbsp;H., \u003ca href=\"#Page_97\"\u003e97\u003c/a\u003e n.\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_222\"\u003e222\u003c/span\u003eCorporations, illustration of relation of individual and social, \u003ca href=\"#Page_190\"\u003e190\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"ifrst\"\u003eDemocracy, political, \u003ca href=\"#Page_77\"\u003e77\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003esignificance of, \u003ca href=\"#Page_83\"\u003e83\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003ehistoric genesis, \u003ca href=\"#Page_83\"\u003e83–87\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003ealleged unity, \u003ca href=\"#Page_83\"\u003e83\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003epure, \u003ca href=\"#Page_94\"\u003e94\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand “individualism”, \u003ca href=\"#Page_86\"\u003e86–96\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003einchoate, \u003ca href=\"#Page_109\"\u003e109\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003epessimism about, \u003ca href=\"#Page_110\"\u003e110\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eAmerican, \u003ca href=\"#Page_111\"\u003e111–15\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eas a moral idea, \u003ca href=\"#Page_143\"\u003e143–44\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003emachinery of\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003epolitical, \u003ca href=\"#Page_143\"\u003e143–46\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003enature of ideal, \u003ca href=\"#Page_147\"\u003e147–51\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand experts, \u003ca href=\"#Page_203\"\u003e203–08\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand local community, \u003ca href=\"#Page_212\"\u003e212\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eDescartes, R., \u003ca href=\"#Page_88\"\u003e88\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eDe Tocqueville, \u003ca href=\"#Page_20\"\u003e20\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eDirect Action, \u003ca href=\"#Page_31\"\u003e31\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eDissemination, and social knowledge, \u003ca href=\"#Page_176\"\u003e176–77\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003ephysical means of, \u003ca href=\"#Page_179\"\u003e179\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand art, \u003ca href=\"#Page_182\"\u003e182–84\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eSee \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Communication\"\u003eCommunication\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eDynastic States, \u003ca href=\"#Page_89\"\u003e89\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"ifrst\"\u003eEconomic Determinism, \u003ca href=\"#Page_118\"\u003e118–89\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_155\"\u003e155–56\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Economic_Forces\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eEconomic Forces and Politics, \u003ca href=\"#Page_89\"\u003e89–93\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_98\"\u003e98\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_100\"\u003e100\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_103\"\u003e103–07\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_114\"\u003e114\u003c/a\u003e,\r\n \u003ca href=\"#Page_118\"\u003e118–20\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_129\"\u003e129–31\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_141\"\u003e141–42\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_144\"\u003e144\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_155\"\u003e155\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_175\"\u003e175\u003c/a\u003e,\r\n \u003ca href=\"#Page_182\"\u003e182\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eEducation, and social control, \u003ca href=\"#Page_197\"\u003e197–99\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand absolutistic method, \u003ca href=\"#Page_200\"\u003e200\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand political democracy, \u003ca href=\"#Page_206\"\u003e206–08\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eElectoral College, \u003ca href=\"#Page_111\"\u003e111\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eEmerson, R.\u0026nbsp;W., \u003ca href=\"#Page_217\"\u003e217\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eEquality, nature of, \u003ca href=\"#Page_149\"\u003e149–50\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eExperimental Method, in politics, \u003ca href=\"#Page_194\"\u003e194–202\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003edefined, \u003ca href=\"#Page_203\"\u003e203\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eExperts, importance of, \u003ca href=\"#Page_123\"\u003e123–25\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_136\"\u003e136–37\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand democracy, \u003ca href=\"#Page_203\"\u003e203–04\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"ifrst\"\u003eFactions, \u003ca href=\"#Page_119\"\u003e119\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eFacts, and meanings, \u003ca href=\"#Page_3\"\u003e3\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003ephysical and social, \u003ca href=\"#Page_6\"\u003e6–7\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_11\"\u003e11–12\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand theories, \u003ca href=\"#Page_17\"\u003e17\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eFarmers, condition of, \u003ca href=\"#Page_129\"\u003e129–30\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"ifrst\"\u003eGerontocracy, \u003ca href=\"#Page_78\"\u003e78\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Government\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eGovernment, and the public, \u003ca href=\"#Page_27\"\u003e27–28\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_32\"\u003e32\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_33\"\u003e33\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_37\"\u003e37\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_65\"\u003e65–69\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eas representative, \u003ca href=\"#Page_76\"\u003e76\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003edynastic, \u003ca href=\"#Page_81\"\u003e81–82\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003efear of, \u003ca href=\"#Page_86\"\u003e86\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_90\"\u003e90\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_92\"\u003e92\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eeconomic control of, \u003ca href=\"#Page_107\"\u003e107\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand opinion, \u003ca href=\"#Page_192\"\u003e192–93\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Great_Society\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eGreat Society, The, \u003ca href=\"#Page_96\"\u003e96\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_98\"\u003e98\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_126\"\u003e126\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_128\"\u003e128\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_142\"\u003e142\u003c/a\u003e,\r\n \u003ca href=\"#Page_147\"\u003e147\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_155\"\u003e155\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_157\"\u003e157\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_184\"\u003e184\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Groups\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eGroups, and the state, \u003ca href=\"#Page_4\"\u003e4\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_26\"\u003e26\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_71\"\u003e71–73\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003elocal, \u003ca href=\"#Page_41\"\u003e41–42\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eSee \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Community\"\u003eCommunity\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"ifrst\"\u003eHabit, political effects, \u003ca href=\"#Page_61\"\u003e61\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_169\"\u003e169\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand “individualism,” \u003ca href=\"#Page_158\"\u003e158–61\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eHayes, C., \u003ca href=\"#Page_170\"\u003e170\u003c/a\u003e n.\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eHegel, G.\u0026nbsp;W.\u0026nbsp;F., \u003ca href=\"#Page_28\"\u003e28\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_71\"\u003e71\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eHistory, continuity of, \u003ca href=\"#Page_161\"\u003e161\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003econtemporaneous, \u003ca href=\"#Page_179\"\u003e179\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eHocking, W.\u0026nbsp;E., quoted, \u003ca href=\"#Page_57\"\u003e57\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eHudson, W.\u0026nbsp;H., quoted, \u003ca href=\"#Page_40\"\u003e40–41\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eHume, D., \u003ca href=\"#Page_56\"\u003e56\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"ifrst\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Individual\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eIndividual, antithesis to social, \u003ca href=\"#Page_13\"\u003e13–15\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_23\"\u003e23\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_63\"\u003e63\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_88\"\u003e88\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_147\"\u003e147\u003c/a\u003e,\r\n \u003ca href=\"#Page_151\"\u003e151\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_186\"\u003e186–191\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand acts, \u003ca href=\"#Page_18\"\u003e18\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_21\"\u003e21\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand officials, \u003ca href=\"#Page_18\"\u003e18\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_75\"\u003e75\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_82\"\u003e82\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand invention, \u003ca href=\"#Page_58\"\u003e58\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eeconomic, \u003ca href=\"#Page_91\"\u003e91\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eas fiction, \u003ca href=\"#Page_102\"\u003e102\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_157\"\u003e157–58\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003edefined, \u003ca href=\"#Page_186\"\u003e186–88\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Individualism\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eIndividualism, origin of, \u003ca href=\"#Page_22\"\u003e22\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_87\"\u003e87–94\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand private property, \u003ca href=\"#Page_61\"\u003e61\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eexplanation of, \u003ca href=\"#Page_98\"\u003e98–102\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003einfluence, \u003ca href=\"#Page_116\"\u003e116\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eeconomic, \u003ca href=\"#Page_134\"\u003e134\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand collectivism, \u003ca href=\"#Page_186\"\u003e186–193\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand method, \u003ca href=\"#Page_195\"\u003e195\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eSee \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Psychology\"\u003ePsychology\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_223\"\u003e223\u003c/span\u003eInstincts, and social theory, \u003ca href=\"#Page_9\"\u003e9–12\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Intelligence\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eIntelligence, necessary for social facts, \u003ca href=\"#Page_12\"\u003e12\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_24\"\u003e24\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_151\"\u003e151–62\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_188\"\u003e188\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand democracy, \u003ca href=\"#Page_208\"\u003e208–10\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eembodied, \u003ca href=\"#Page_200\"\u003e200–01\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eSee \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Consequences\"\u003eConsequences\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e, \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Knowledge\"\u003eKnowledge\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eInterdependence, \u003ca href=\"#Page_155\"\u003e155\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"ifrst\"\u003eJames, W., quoted, \u003ca href=\"#Page_159\"\u003e159–60\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eJustice, and property, \u003ca href=\"#Page_92\"\u003e92\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"ifrst\"\u003eKings’s Peace, \u003ca href=\"#Page_48\"\u003e48\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Knowledge\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eKnowledge, political, \u003ca href=\"#Page_162\"\u003e162–67\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003edivided, \u003ca href=\"#Page_175\"\u003e175\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand communication, \u003ca href=\"#Page_176\"\u003e176–79\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_218\"\u003e218–19\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"ifrst\"\u003eLabor Legislation, \u003ca href=\"#Page_62\"\u003e62\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003e\u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003eLaissez-faire\u003c/i\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_91\"\u003e91\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_134\"\u003e134\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eLaw, not command, \u003ca href=\"#Page_53\"\u003e53–54\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003enature of, \u003ca href=\"#Page_54\"\u003e54–57\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003e“natural,” \u003ca href=\"#Page_90\"\u003e90\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_95\"\u003e95\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_102\"\u003e102\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_155\"\u003e155\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003esocial and physical, \u003ca href=\"#Page_196\"\u003e196–97\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eLegal Institutions, \u003ca href=\"#Page_16\"\u003e16\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_47\"\u003e47\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eLiberalism, \u003ca href=\"#Page_134\"\u003e134\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eLiberty, made an end in itself, \u003ca href=\"#Page_86\"\u003e86\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand “individualism,” \u003ca href=\"#Page_98\"\u003e98–100\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_192\"\u003e192–94\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003enature of, \u003ca href=\"#Page_150\"\u003e150\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eof thought, \u003ca href=\"#Page_168\"\u003e168–70\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand uniformity, \u003ca href=\"#Page_215\"\u003e215–16\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eLippmann, W., \u003ca href=\"#Page_116\"\u003e116\u003c/a\u003e n, \u003ca href=\"#Page_158\"\u003e158\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eLocke, J., on natural rights, \u003ca href=\"#Page_87\"\u003e87\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"ifrst\"\u003eMacaulay, \u003ca href=\"#Page_102\"\u003e102\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eMajorities and Minorities, \u003ca href=\"#Page_207\"\u003e207–08\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eMaterialism, \u003ca href=\"#Page_173\"\u003e173–74\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eMethod, problem of, \u003ca href=\"#Page_192\"\u003e192–203\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eMill, J., theory of democratic government, \u003ca href=\"#Page_93\"\u003e93–95\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Mill_JnbspS\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eMill, J.\u0026nbsp;S., \u003ca href=\"#Page_195\"\u003e195\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eMobility, social effect, \u003ca href=\"#Page_140\"\u003e140\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"ifrst\"\u003eNationalism, \u003ca href=\"#Page_170\"\u003e170\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eNews, \u003ca href=\"#Page_179\"\u003e179–81\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"ifrst\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Officers\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eOfficers, agents of public, \u003ca href=\"#Page_16\"\u003e16\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_17\"\u003e17\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_33\"\u003e33\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_35\"\u003e35\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_67\"\u003e67–68\u003c/a\u003e,\r\n \u003ca href=\"#Page_75\"\u003e75\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003edual capacity, \u003ca href=\"#Page_77\"\u003e77\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_82\"\u003e82\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eselection of, \u003ca href=\"#Page_78\"\u003e78–82\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eOpinion, \u003ca href=\"#Page_177\"\u003e177\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_179\"\u003e179\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"ifrst\"\u003eParties, \u003ca href=\"#Page_119\"\u003e119–21\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003ePaternalism, \u003ca href=\"#Page_62\"\u003e62\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003ePerception, see \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Intelligence\"\u003eIntelligence\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Consequences\"\u003eConsequences\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003ePioneer Conditions, effect on American democracy, \u003ca href=\"#Page_111\"\u003e111\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003ePluralism, political, \u003ca href=\"#Page_73\"\u003e73–74\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003e\u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003ePopulus\u003c/i\u003e, defined, \u003ca href=\"#Page_16\"\u003e16\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003ePrivate, defined, \u003ca href=\"#Page_15\"\u003e15\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eSee \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Public\"\u003ePublic\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eProhibition, \u003ca href=\"#Page_132\"\u003e132–33\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003ePropaganda, \u003ca href=\"#Page_181\"\u003e181–82\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eProperty, and government, \u003ca href=\"#Page_91\"\u003e91–93\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eSee \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Economic_Forces\"\u003eEconomic Forces\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Psychology\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003ePsychology, of habit, \u003ca href=\"#Page_61\"\u003e61\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_159\"\u003e159–60\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eof individualism, \u003ca href=\"#Page_88\"\u003e88\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eof private consciousness, \u003ca href=\"#Page_100\"\u003e100\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_158\"\u003e158\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003esocial effects of science of, \u003ca href=\"#Page_197\"\u003e197–99\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Public\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003ePublic, and private, \u003ca href=\"#Page_12\"\u003e12–17\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_47\"\u003e47–52\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand political agencies, \u003ca href=\"#Page_31\"\u003e31\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_35\"\u003e35\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_38\"\u003e38\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_67\"\u003e67\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003emarks of, \u003ca href=\"#Page_39\"\u003e39–64\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eownership, \u003ca href=\"#Page_61\"\u003e61\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003edemocratic, \u003ca href=\"#Page_77\"\u003e77\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eeducation, \u003ca href=\"#Page_112\"\u003e112–13\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eeclipse of, \u003ca href=\"#Page_115\"\u003e115\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_122\"\u003e122\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_131\"\u003e131\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_137\"\u003e137\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_185\"\u003e185\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eproblem of, \u003ca href=\"#Page_125\"\u003e125\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_185\"\u003e185\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_208\"\u003e208\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_216\"\u003e216\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003ecomplexity of, \u003ca href=\"#Page_126\"\u003e126\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eas intellectual problem, \u003ca href=\"#Page_152\"\u003e152\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand publicity, \u003ca href=\"#Page_167\"\u003e167–171\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_219\"\u003e219\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand opinion, \u003ca href=\"#Page_177\"\u003e177\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"ifrst\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_224\"\u003e224\u003c/span\u003eRailways, and government, \u003ca href=\"#Page_133\"\u003e133–34\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eReason, and the state, \u003ca href=\"#Page_20\"\u003e20\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand law, \u003ca href=\"#Page_55\"\u003e55–57\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eReligion, and social institutions, \u003ca href=\"#Page_41\"\u003e41\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_49\"\u003e49\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_169\"\u003e169–70\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eRights, natural, \u003ca href=\"#Page_87\"\u003e87\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_95\"\u003e95\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_102\"\u003e102\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eRousseau, J.\u0026nbsp;J., \u003ca href=\"#Page_155\"\u003e155\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eRulers, see \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Officers\"\u003eOfficers\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Government\"\u003eGovernment\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"ifrst\"\u003eSantayana, G., quoted, \u003ca href=\"#Page_211\"\u003e211\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eScience, distinction from knowledge, \u003ca href=\"#Page_163\"\u003e163–65\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_172\"\u003e172\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003esocial and physical, \u003ca href=\"#Page_171\"\u003e171\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_179\"\u003e179\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_199\"\u003e199\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand the press, \u003ca href=\"#Page_181\"\u003e181–82\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eapplied, \u003ca href=\"#Page_172\"\u003e172–76\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003emethod, \u003ca href=\"#Page_201\"\u003e201\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eSmith, Adam, \u003ca href=\"#Page_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_89\"\u003e89\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eSmith, T.\u0026nbsp;V., \u003ca href=\"#Page_147\"\u003e147\u003c/a\u003e n\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003e“Socialization,” \u003ca href=\"#Page_70\"\u003e70\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Society\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eSociety, human, \u003ca href=\"#Page_24\"\u003e24–25\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand states, \u003ca href=\"#Page_26\"\u003e26–29\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_69\"\u003e69–74\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_147\"\u003e147–49\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eSee \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Association\"\u003eAssociation\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e, \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Community\"\u003eCommunity\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e, \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Consequences\"\u003eConsequences\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e, \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Great_Society\"\u003eGreat Society\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e, \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Groups\"\u003eGroups\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e, \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Individual\"\u003eIndividual\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e, \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Public\"\u003ePublic\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eSpencer, H., \u003ca href=\"#Page_63\"\u003e63\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_79\"\u003e79\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Symbols\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eSymbols, social import of, \u003ca href=\"#Page_141\"\u003e141–42\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_152\"\u003e152–54\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_218\"\u003e218\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"ifrst\"\u003eTariff, \u003ca href=\"#Page_131\"\u003e131–32\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eTheocracy, \u003ca href=\"#Page_41\"\u003e41\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_49\"\u003e49\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_80\"\u003e80\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eTilden, S.\u0026nbsp;J., \u003ca href=\"#Page_208\"\u003e208\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eTheories, political, \u003ca href=\"#Page_4\"\u003e4\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_8\"\u003e8\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_85\"\u003e85\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eSee \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Causal_forces\"\u003eCausal Forces\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e, \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Economic_Forces\"\u003eEconomic Forces\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e, \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Individualism\"\u003eIndividualism\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e, \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Mill_JnbspS\"\u003eMill, J.\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e, \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Utilitarianism\"\u003eUtilitarianism\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eToleration, \u003ca href=\"#Page_49\"\u003e49–51\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eTradition, revolt against, \u003ca href=\"#Page_86\"\u003e86\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"ifrst\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Utilitarianism\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eUtilitarianism, \u003ca href=\"#Page_91\"\u003e91\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"ifrst\"\u003eWallas, G., \u003ca href=\"#Page_96\"\u003e96\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eWants, individualistic theory of, \u003ca href=\"#Page_102\"\u003e102\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003esocially conditioned, \u003ca href=\"#Page_103\"\u003e103–04\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eWar, and selection of rulers, \u003ca href=\"#Page_79\"\u003e79\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003ethe World, \u003ca href=\"#Page_127\"\u003e127–28\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eWhitman, Walt, \u003ca href=\"#Page_184\"\u003e184\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eWill, as cause of state, \u003ca href=\"#Page_20\"\u003e20\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#Page_38\"\u003e38\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand the command theory of law, \u003ca href=\"#Page_53\"\u003e53\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eand government, \u003ca href=\"#Page_68\"\u003e68\u003c/a\u003e;\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003egeneral, \u003ca href=\"#Page_153\"\u003e153\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eWilson, Woodrow, quoted, \u003ca href=\"#Page_96\"\u003e96–97\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cli class=\"indx\"\u003eWorkers, political neglect and emancipation, \u003ca href=\"#Page_99\"\u003e99–100\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003cli class=\"isub1\"\u003eSee \u003ci\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Economic_Forces\"\u003eEconomic Forces\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\u003c/ul\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"transnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003ch2 class=\"nobreak\" id=\"Transcribers_Notes\"\u003eTranscriber’s Notes\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003ePunctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made\r\nconsistent when a predominant preference was found\r\nin the original book; otherwise they were not changed.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eSimple typographical errors were corrected; unbalanced\r\nquotation marks were remedied when the change was\r\nobvious, and otherwise left unbalanced.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c!– \u003cp\u003eIllustrations in this eBook have been positioned\r\nbetween paragraphs and outside quotations. In versions\r\nof this eBook that support hyperlinks, the page\r\nreferences in the List of Illustrations lead to the\r\ncorresponding illustrations.\u003c/p\u003e –\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe index was not checked for proper alphabetization\r\nor correct page references.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eFootnotes, originally at the bottoms of the pages\r\non which they were referenced, have been collected,\r\nrenumbered, and placed just before the Index.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eSome page numbers in the Table of Contents are\r\nout of sequence, as they were in the original\r\nbook.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe correct spelling of the name, “Ayers”, likely is “Ayres”.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003c/article\u003e"}],"SectionSequence":["Back Link","Work Title","Deck","Author","Period","Era","Composition","Date Note","Region","Terra Avita","Terra Avita Region","Modern Country","Original Title","Language","Primary Discipline","Secondary Discipline","Tradition","Full Versions","Core Thesis","Classification","Arguments","Influence","Significance","Evidence Note","Full Text"],"Counts":{"ContextCards":3,"GeoCards":4,"DisciplineCards":2,"Links":11,"Sections":25,"Styles":3,"Scripts":1}}