culties. Given the opportunity, man appears able to wrest from nature more secrets than he is able to utilize. In recent centuries his achievements have outstripped his social organization and his social problems have grown apace. Progress Is Not Inevitable Progress, then, is far from inevitable. History teems with fallen cultures. We know little of the causes of their downfall. We observe that in all cases they were located in places where unusual wealth might be produced. They have been developed in various parts of earth, by various races, under varying systems of government and with diverse religious beliefs. Admitting the possibility that Huntington is correct in his claim that climatic change has been a constant factor-though positive evidence is lacking-and admitting the adequacy thereof if present, there remains the possibility that two other causes, at least, have been operative. The first we call overpopulation, so many people in a given area that adequate wealth cannot be produced. We know that this has played a part in history-how large a part we cannot tell. Wealth is not in sight for Italy with its present population. Morals There remains the possibility that the trouble has lain primarily in the social organization—the morals, to use common language. The moralist has ever insisted that the people were forsaking God, that is, were developing bad morals. But to the professional moralist most of the things done by man were bad, and, therefore, he became better as he stopped doing things until finally he stopped living and went to heaven, a place seemingly populated by people who had not done things on earth. "We are all miserable offenders and there is no health in us." This is a bit too naïve. Wealth has always been portrayed as antagonistic to conventional morality. Has this been due to the fact that the wealthy could do more things? At least it suggests the possibility that the trouble has been due not to the decay of morality but to its crystallization, to a failure to change to meet new conditions. This question needs more attention than has been given it. Once more we return to earth. The conditions of society are based on the reactions of man to the physical basis. The earth is the starting point. No limit seems to be set to the use he can make of it, save the limit of his own capacity. No one can predict what use any given group will make, nor how adequate a social organization it will develop, nor whether its ideals will promote or check further advance. Man has progressed not by denying nature but by shaping it to his ends. Failure and success are equally possible. Which shall it be? World Unity A few paragraphs above it was suggested that the combination of science with the desire if not the necessity of using the products of all parts of earth, was forcing a world unity. Has the reader ever stopped to ask himself what this involves in terms of ideals and organization? If not let him map the parts of earth on which we call for our daily supplies and to which, directly or indirectly, we must send some of our products in exchange. Let him picture the great web of relations necessary to accomplish this and then speculate as to its reactions on our old theory of national isolation. The older concepts of well-being were not only local but involved an indifference as to what happened elsewhere. If human achievements are creating a world unity, will not a redefinition of the content of progress be necessary? How can any country maintain its standard of living without a guarantee of steady supply of necessities? Let those who advocate the end of war answer. After Progress, What? Nothing is more amusing than to travel about America and find every little hamlet anxious to become something it is not. The most common desire is for increase in population, as if size meant improvement. A little farming village wants industries started. Progress again! Is progress the only possible ideal of life? It has been indicated that such has not always been the case. We may well ask, After progress, what? In achieving its ascendency and unfolding its meaning, the Idea of Progress had to overcome a psychological obstacle which may be described as the illusion of finality. The illusion of finality is strong. The men of the Middle Ages would have found it hard to imagine that a time was not far off in which the Last Judgment would have ceased to arouse any emotional influence. . . But if we accept the reasonings on which the dogma of Progress is based, must we not carry them to their full conclusion? In escaping from the illusion of finality, is it legitimate to exempt that dogma itself? Must not it, too, submit to its own negation of finality? ... In other words, does not Progress itself suggest that its value as a doctrine is only relative, corresponding to a certain not very advanced stage of civilization; just as Providence in its day was an idea of relative value, corresponding to a stage somewhat less advanced? Or will it be said that this argument is merely a disconcerting trick of dialectic played under cover of the darkness in which the issue of the future is safely hidden by Horace's prudent god? 5 REFERENCES 1. J. H. RANDALL, Making of the Modern Mind, p. 100. 2. V. PARETO, Sociologie générale, Par., 973. 3. J. A. THOMSON, Heredity, pp. 510-512. 4. F. Boas, Mind of Primitive Man, pp. 205-206. 5. J. B. BURY, The Idea of Progress, pp. 351-352. CHAPTER XVIII THE COSTS OF CHANGE We are all blind until we see In vain we build the world unless Prosperity and Virtue -EDWIN MARKHAM One of the deep-seated convictions of man, regardless of race, location, or era, has been his belief that society prospered to the degree that it followed implicitly the commands of God and practiced certain simple virtues. The things held as virtues have varied, but among our recent ancestors have included labor, thrift, temperance. Did serious trouble arise for the whole group or for the individual, the explanation was sought in some sin or moral defect originating in the heart of man. Here was the explanation of failure. to succeed, shiftlessness or vice. All problems would be solved if the teachings of religion were obeyed. Regardless of the amount of truth in this explanation, it is too simple to fit all the facts. Men do not differ so much about abstract ideals as about their application in daily life. How much must a man labor to avoid being considered lazy? How much must he save to be deemed thrifty? How much may he drink without being intemperate? On such points the verdicts vary. The first temperance society in Phila delphia of which I have knowledge pledged its members not to get drunk more than four times a year, listing the occasions on which it was permitted, such as New Year's Day. How would the temperance leaders of to-day describe such a pledge? Change as a Source of Social Problems Ascribe to any given set of virtues what merits we may, it seems certain that changes in the conditions of life and the necessary readjustments constitute an important, perhaps the most important, source of social problems. There are many possible causes of these changes; the gradual drying up of parts of Asia as described by Huntington, the migration to the New World, movements from cold to hot lands or from moist to arid regions, are sure to put a stress on old customs. Too long have we talked of the world in terms of static conditions. In reality it is ever changing, though centuries may have to pass ere man accepts the fact. Man himself is responsible for many of the changes. The world is one thing when man knows not the metals; it is very different when he has learned to use copper and iron. To all intents and purposes the physical environment varies with the stage of intellectual development of man. The many discoveries and inventions suggested in earlier chapters have not only modified our daily life but have produced and are producing profound changes in our attitudes, many of which are far from being appreciated at present. To use the happy phrase of Ogburn, there is a "cultural lag." Slow as the discoveries seem to have been in most periods of history, the social readjustments they involve are even slower. The result is that when there comes a period of rapid change such as that through which we are passing, the evidences of maladjustment are multiplied. This is a thesis whose general truth or falsity should be revealed by a brief survey of American history. |