In order to open such lines of anthropological investigation and
ethical reflection, I have raised the question: "Is Civilization a
Disease?"
Had I asked, "Is Civilization Christian?" I should have defeated my own
end. You would have answered "No" as soon as you saw the subject of my
discourse announced, and would have stayed at home. But you might still
have given your ethical sanction to trade. You might have said, "It
does not pretend to be Christian; but that is nothing against it, for
the vital principle of Christianity is sentimental and impracticable:
and what won't work can't be right."
Had I raised the question in the form, "Could trade ever have emanated
from an intelligent motive of universal love--of deference for the
humanity in every man?" you would have replied, "Never!" But you might
have consoled yourself with the thought that it is only a small part of
our boasted civilization. We have art and education and family life and
monogamy and religion; and these come in as correctives, so that trade,
although not conceived of benevolence and not bearing the stamp of
humanity in its character, is comparatively harmless under the
restraints laid upon it. Then, too, the idea of universal love savors
of theology, and would have put my lecture under that general ban which
in philosophical circles has been set up against theological ethics.
Indeed, I even shrank from asking, "Is civilization unethical, or
wrong, or bad?" For nowadays we find moral judgments more attractive
when they are disguised or at least slightly veiled. When we are really
curious to know what is good, we become shy; we are not sure that our
neighbors may not put a cynical interpretation upon any appearance of
enthusiasm in our effort to find out what is right. Anticipating such
delicacy in my prospective audience of to-night, I threw a
physiological drapery, not to say pathological, over the ethical
bareness of my theme, by introducing into it the idea of disease. For
while it may no longer be a stigma to be un-Christian, and while some
have been trying to break all the traditional tables of moral values
and prevent any new ones from being inscribed, nobody, so far as I have
been able to learn, has denied that disease, whether physical or only
mental, is an evil and a thing which it would be wicked to spread for
the mere delight in spreading it. Happily, there is still astir
throughout the community an active, virile, and unashamed desire--and
not only among women--for health. And in alertness and resourcefulness
it is second only to the desire for wealth itself. The result is, that
if anything which we have admired and been proud of has been discovered
by experts to be of the nature of disease, we want to be notified, so
that we may reverse our sentiments towards it, and if possible destroy
it. The word "disease" is still plainly one of reproach.
On the other hand, the very term "civilization" sets emotions vibrating
of deference and awe towards the institution it signifies. Indeed,
pride in being civilized is still so nearly universal--especially among
Americans--that many persons upon hearing the point mooted whether
civilization be a disease or not, are disposed to resent the bare
suggestion as smacking of whimsicality.