THE TWO THINGS NEEDFUL
In my earlier chapters I traced to the Industrial Revolution in England
the origin of that subordination, in the English-speaking countries, of
rural to urban interests which finds its expression to-day in the
problem of rural life. I have shown that the continuance of the tendency
in America was natural if not inevitable, and have urged that, for
economic, social and political reasons, its further progress should now
be stayed. If my view as to the origin, present effects and probable
consequences of the evil be accepted, any serious proposals for a remedy
will be welcomed by all who realise that national well-being cannot
endure if urban prosperity is accompanied by rural decay. In this belief
I offer the scheme for a Country Life movement which has slowly matured
in my own mind as the result of the experience described in the
preceding pages.
The first aim of the movement should be to coördinate, and guide towards
a common end, the efforts of a large number of agencies--educational,
religious, social and philanthropic--which, in their several ways, are
already engaged upon some part of the work to be done. For such a
movement the United States offers advantages not to be found elsewhere
in the area for which we are concerned. For here public-spirited
individuals and associations of the kind required exist in larger
numbers than can be known to any one who has not watched what is going
on in this field of social service. If I had not already devoted too
much space to personal experiences, I could of my own knowledge testify
to the remarkable growth of organised effort in American rural
communities. Sometimes this is the outcome of a growing spirit of
neighbourliness, sometimes it emanates from young Universities and
Colleges emulating the extension work with which nearly every big city
is familiar. I have been much struck with the way in which, at
gatherings of school teachers, pedagogic detail and questions affecting
their status and emoluments have become less popular subjects for
discussion than schemes of social progress.[9] Similarly, the
agricultural Press is becoming less exclusively technical and
commercial, and more human. Even the syndicated stuff is getting less
townified. My correspondence, newspaper clippings sent to me, and many
other indications, point in the same direction. They leave the
impression upon my mind that there is a vast, efficient and enthusiastic
army of social workers upon the farm lands of the United States badly in
need of a Headquarters Staff.
If I am right in believing that, of the English-speaking countries, the
United States affords the best opportunity for such a consummation, most
assuredly the present time is peculiarly auspicious. If Mr. Roosevelt's
Country Life policy has not been received with any marked enthusiasm,
American public opinion has been thoroughly aroused upon his
Conservation policy. The latter cannot possibly come to fruition--nor
even go much further--until the Country Life problem is boldly faced. In
the Conference of Governors it was pointed out over and over again that
the farmer, now the chief waster, must become the chief conserver. As
such he will himself become a supporter of the policy, and will bring to
the aid of those advocates of Conservation whose chief concern is for
future generations, an interested public opinion which will go far to
outweigh the influence of those who profit by the exhaustion of natural
resources. To the country life reformer I would say that, as the one
idea has caught on while the other lags, he will, if he is wise, hitch
his Country Life waggon to the Conservation star.
With every advantage of time and place, the promotion of the movement
which is to counteract the townward tendency will have to reckon with
the psychological difficulty inherent in the conditions. They must
recognise the paradox of the situation already pointed out, the
necessity of interesting the town in the problems of the country. The
urban attitude of mind which caused the evil, and now makes it difficult
to interest public opinion in the remedy, is not new; it pervades the
literature of the Augustan age. I recall from my school days Virgil's
great handbook on Italian agriculture, written with a mastery of
technical detail unsurpassed by Kipling. But the farmers he had in mind
when he indulged in his memorable rhapsody upon the happiness of their
lot were out for pleasure rather than profit. While the suburban poet
sang to the merchant princes, Rome was paying a bonus upon imported
corn, and entering generally upon that fatal disregard for the interest
of the rural population which is one of the accepted causes of the
decline and fall.
How that Old World tragi-comedy comes back to me when I talk to New York
friends on the subject of these pages! I am not, so they tell me, up to
date in my information; there is a marked revulsion of feeling upon the
town _versus_ country question; the tide of the rural exodus has really
turned, as I might have discerned without going far afield. At many a
Long Island home I might see on Sundays, weather permitting, the
horny-handed son of week-day toil in Wall Street, rustically attired,
inspecting his Jersey cows and aristocratic fowls. These supply a select
circle in New York with butter and eggs, at a price which leaves nothing
to be desired--unless it be some information as to the cost of
production. Full justice is done to the new country life when the
Farmers' Club of New York fulfils its chief function, the annual dinner
at Delmonico's. Then agriculture is extolled in fine Virgilian style,
the Hudson villa and the Newport 'cottage' being permitted to divide the
honours of the rural revival with the Long Island home. But to my
bucolic intelligence, it would seem that against the 'back to the land'
movement of Saturday afternoon the captious critic might set the rural
exodus of Monday morning.
These reflections are introduced in no unfriendly spirit, and with
serious intent. To me this new rural life is associated with memories of
characteristically American hospitality; but my interest in it is more
than personal. It is giving to those who cultivate it, among whom are
the helpers most needed at the moment, a point of view which will enable
them to grasp the real problem of the open country, as it exists, for
example, in the great food-producing and cotton-growing tracts of the
West and South. Both in the countries where the townward tendency of
the industrial age was foreseen and prevented, and in those in which the
evil is being cured, the impulse and inspiration which will be required
to initiate and sustain our Country Life movement came mainly from
leaders who were not themselves agriculturists.[10] Proficiency in the
practice or even in the business of farming is not necessary. What is
needed is a comprehensive knowledge of public affairs, political
imagination, an understanding sympathy with and a philosophic insight
into the entire life of communities. Men who combine with the necessary
experience those gifts of heart and mind which go to make the higher
citizenship in the many, and the statesmanship in the few, will more
likely be found in the city than in the country. Yet they are, in the
conditions, the natural leaders of the Country Life movement, which must
now be defined.
The situation demands two things; on the one hand an association,
popular, propagandist, organising; on the other, an Institute,
scientific, philosophic, research-making. These two things are distinct
in character, but they are complementary to each other. One will require
popular enthusiasm and business organisation. To the service of the
other must be brought the patient spirit of scientific and philosophic
analysis and inquiry. These two bodies--the popular propagandist
association and the scientific research-making Institute--must,
therefore, be created; and, for a reason to be explained when we
consider the work of the Institute, they should be independent of each
other. This rough indication of the character of the work, which I will
describe more in detail presently, will suffice for the moment. I feel
that the work will be so intensely human in its interest that it will be
well to say at once how the two central agencies can be established, and
the movement made, not a writer's fancy, but a living and doing agency
of human progress.
A body, in many respects ideally fitted to give the necessary impulse
and direction to the work of organisation, is already in the field. The
leaders of the Conservation idea, recognising that their policy, in
common with other policies, will need an organised public opinion at its
back, have founded a National Conservation Association. Mr. Gifford
Pinchot has now been selected as its President. Before he was available,
the task of organising and setting to work the new institution was
unanimously entrusted to and accepted by President Eliot, of whose
qualifications all I will say is that we foreign students of social
problems vie with his own countrymen in our appreciation of his public
work and aims. These two appointments are sufficient proof of the
serious importance of the work, and bespeak public influence and support
for the Association. I have no doubt that this body would be fully
qualified to formulate and initiate the Country Life movement, and act
as the central agency for the active promotion of its objects. Its
members, who, I am sure, agree with Mr. Roosevelt in regarding the
movement as a necessary complement to the Conservation policy, might
even feel that for this very reason it was incumbent upon them to set
their organisation to this work.
There is, however, one consideration which will make Mr. Pinchot and his
associates hesitate to adopt this course. The doubt relates to the
distinction I have drawn between the Conservation policy and the Country
Life movement, the one seeking to promote legislative and administrative
action, and the other, while it may give birth to a policy, being
chiefly concerned with voluntary effort.[11] Although the National
Conservation Association is founded for the purpose of educating public
opinion upon the Conservation idea, it may decide to support the
Conservation policy of one party rather than that of another. It would
thus become too much involved in party controversy to act as a central
agency of a movement which must embrace men of all parties. Should this
view prevail, the difficulty can be easily surmounted by following the
Irish precedent, where we had a very similar and indeed far more
delicate situation to save from political trouble. An American
Agricultural Organisation Society could be founded for the purpose in
view, and as it is probable that leading advocates of the Conservation
policy would take a prominent part in the Country Life movement, the
interdependence of the two ideas would have practical recognition.
Apart from the possibility of political complications, there is one
strong reason to recommend this course. The movement will accomplish its
best and most permanent results as an advocate of self-reliance; it will
seek to make self-help effective through organisation; it will concern
itself much more for those things which the farmers can do for
themselves by coöperation than with those things which the Government
can do for them.[12] The selection, however, between the two alternative
courses is a question which the foreign critic cannot decide. The work
to which I now return will be the same, whatever agency is charged with
its execution.
The central body (which for brevity I will call the Association) will
have as its general aim the economic and social development of rural
communities. The work will be mainly that of active organisation. For
reasons explained in the earlier chapters, the organisation must be
coöperative in character, and will be concentrated upon the business
methods of the farmers. This will, it is believed, cure a radical defect
in their system--a defect which, as I have argued, is responsible for a
restricted production, and for a course of distribution injurious alike
to producer and consumer, besides exercising a depressing influence upon
the economic efficiency and social life of rural communities. It follows
that the first step towards a general reconstruction of country life,
which has the promise of giving to the country a social attraction
strong enough to stem the tide of the townward migration, is
agricultural coöperation.
Such being the general aim and the definite procedure, the first
practical question that arises will be, how to apply this
solvent--agricultural coöperation. It will not suffice to throw these
two long words at the hardy rustic; shorter and more emphatic words
might come back. Two equally necessary things must be done; the
principle must be made clear, and the practical details of this rural
equivalent of urban business combination must be explained in language
understanded of the people. It is not difficult to draft a paper scheme
for this purpose, but the fitting of the plan to local conditions is a
very expert business. Hence the central agency should have at its
disposal a corps of experts in coöperative organisation for agricultural
purposes. After a short visit to a likely district by a competent
exponent of the theory and practice, local volunteers would be found to
carry on the work. Experience shows that once a well-organised
coöperative association of farmers is permanently established, similar
associations spring up spontaneously under the magic influence of
proved success in known conditions. I should strongly recommend
concentration at first on a few selected districts, with the aim of
making standard models to which other communities could work. I need
hardly say that all this work would be done in coöperation with whatever
other agencies would lend their aid. The Country Life movement would be
extremely useful to the great educational foundations centred in New
York. I happen to know that the Trustees of the Rockefeller, Carnegie
and Russell Sage endowments are keenly desirous to promote such a
redirection of rural education as will bring it into a more helpful
relation with the working lives of the rural population. Then there are
such bodies as the Y. M. C. A., whose leaders, I am told, are alive to
the value of the open air life, and are anxious to extend their country
work in the rural districts. The great army of rural teachers, the
Farmers' Union, and other farmers' organisations I have already named
would gladly coöperate with schemes making for rural progress.
More important, I believe, than is generally realised, from an economic
and social point of view, are the rural churches. In many European
countries, where agricultural coöperation has played a great part in the
people's lives, the clergy have ardently supported the system on account
of its moral value. In Ireland, some of our very best volunteer
organisers are clergymen. Some leaders of the rural church in the United
States have told me that a feeling is growing that an increased economic
usefulness in the clergy would strengthen their position in the society
which they serve in a higher capacity. I know that the suggestion of
clerical intervention in secular affairs is open to misunderstanding.
But here is a body of educated citizens who would gladly take part in
any real social service; and here is a situation where there is work of
high moral and social value calling for volunteers. Nothing but good,
it seems to me, could result if such men, who have more opportunity and
inclination for general reading than the working farmer, would help in
explaining the intricacies of coöperative organisation and procedure
which must be understood and practised in order that the system may be
fruitful.
In addition to its active propagandist work, the central Association
could exercise a powerful and helpful influence in other ways. It
should, of course, keep both the agricultural and the general press
informed of its plans and progress. It should also keep in touch with
the agricultural work of all important educational bodies, and more
especially urge upon them the necessity of spreading the coöperative
idea. The Department of Agriculture would welcome and support the
movement; for I know many leading men in that service who thoroughly
understand and recognise the immense importance, especially to backward
rural communities, of the coöperative principle.
It is not necessary, at this stage, to go further into details. I feel
confident that the work of assisting all suitable agencies, such as
those I have named, and others which may be available, through
organisers of agricultural coöperation and by the spreading of
information, would soon enable the central body to render inestimable
service to the cause of rural progress. Such, at any rate, is the
outline of my first proposal for giving to my American fellow-workers
upon the rural problem the assistance which I feel they most need at the
present moment. I pass now to my second proposal.
I suggest that an institution--which, as I have said, will be
scientific, philosophic, research-making--should be founded. It would
be, in effect, a Bureau of research in rural social economy. Personally
I know that, in my own experience as an administrator and organiser, I
have been constantly brought face to face with problems where we could
turn to no guide--no patient band of investigators who had been
measuring, analysing, determining the data. Yet in some directions much
excellent work is being done. Every social worker knows how the
knowledge of what others are doing will help him. It is strange how
little the problems of the rural population have entered into the
studies of economists and sociologists. At leading Universities I have
sought in vain for light. At a recent anniversary in New York, which
brought together the foremost economists of the Old and New World, there
was an almost complete omission of the country side of things from a
programme which I am sure was generally held to be almost exhaustive.
The fact is, the subject must be treated as a new one, and it is
urgently necessary, if the work of the Country Life movement is to be
based on a solid foundation of fact, to make good the deficiency of
information which has resulted from the general lack of interest in the
subject under review. An Institute is wanted to survey the field, to
collect, classify and coördinate information and to supplement and carry
forward the work of research and inquiry. The rural social worker
requires as far as possible to carry exact statistical method into his
work so that he may no longer have to depend on general statements, but
may have at his command evidence, the validity of which can be trusted,
while its significance can be measured. I may mention a few typical
questions on which useful light would be shed by the Institute's
researches:--
1. The influence of coöperative methods (_a_) on the productive and
distributive efficiency of rural communities, and (_b_) on the
development of a social country life.
2. The systems of rural education, both general and technical, in
different countries, and the administrative and financial basis of each
system.
3. The relation between agricultural economy and the cost of food.
4. The changes (_a_) in the standard and cost of living, and (_b_) in
the economy, solvency and stability of rural communities.
5. The economic interdependence of the agricultural producer and the
urban consumer, and the extent and incidence of middle profits in the
distribution of agricultural produce.
6. The action taken by different Governments to assist the development
and secure the stability of the agricultural classes, and the
possibilities and the dangers of such action, with special reference to
the delimitation of the respective spheres of State aid and voluntary
effort.
7. How far agricultural and rural employment can relieve the problems of
city unemployment, and assist the work of social reclamation.
Some may think that I am assigning to two bodies work which could be as
well done by one. While all proposals for multiplying organisations in
the field of social service should be critically examined, there are
strong reasons in this case for the course I suggest. The two bodies,
while working to a common end, will differ essentially in their scope
and method. The propagandist agency will be executive and
administrative, and while its operations would have suggestive value to
the country social worker everywhere, it would be concerned directly
only with the United States. Furthermore, it need not necessarily have
any lengthened existence as a national propagandist agency. It would be
founded mainly to introduce that method into American agricultural
economy which I have tried to show lies at the root of rural progress.
As soon as the soundness of the general scheme had been demonstrated in
any State, the central body would promote an organisation to take over
the work within that State. The State organisation would, in its turn,
soon be able to devolve its propagandist work upon a federation of the
business associations which it had been the means of establishing. That
is the contemplated evolution of my first proposal--the early delegation
of the functions of the national to the State propagandist agency, which
would further devolve the work upon bodies of farmers organised
primarily for economic purposes, but with the ulterior aim of social
advancement.
The Country Life Institute would be on a wholly different footing. Its
researches, if only to subserve the Country Life movement in the United
States, would have to range over the civilised world, and to be
historical as well as contemporary. It should be regarded as a
contribution to the welfare of the English-speaking peoples, one aspect
of whose civilisation--if there be truth in what I have written--needs
to be reconsidered in the light which the Institute is designed to
afford. Its task will be of no ephemeral character. Its success will
not, as in the case of the active propagandist body, lessen the need for
its services, but will rather stimulate the demand for them.
These differences will have to be taken into account in considering the
important question of ways and means. Both bodies will, I hope, appeal
successfully to public-spirited philanthropists. The temporary body will
need only temporary support; perhaps provision for a five-years'
campaign would suffice. In the near future, local organisations would
naturally defray the cost of the services rendered to them by the
central body; but the Country Life Institute would need a permanent
endowment. The man fitted for its chief control will not be found idle,
but will have to be taken from other work. The scheme, as I have worked
it out, will involve prolonged economic and social inquiry over a wide
field. This would be conducted mostly by postgraduate students. From
those who did this outside work with credit would be recruited the
small staff which would be needed at the central office to get into the
most accessible form the facts and opinions which are needed for the
guidance of those who are doing practical work in the field of rural
regeneration. My estimate of the amount required to do the work well is
from forty to fifty thousand dollars a year, or say a capital sum of
from a million to a million and a quarter dollars. Whether the project
is worthy of such an expenditure, depends upon the question whether I
have made good my case.
Let me summarise this case. I have tried to show that modern
civilisation is one-sided to a dangerous degree--that it has
concentrated itself in the towns and left the country derelict. This
tendency is peculiar to the English-speaking communities, where the
great industrial movement has had as its consequence the rural problem I
have examined. If the townward tendency cannot be checked, it will
ultimately bring about the decay of the towns themselves, and of our
whole civilisation, for the towns draw their supply of population from
the country. Moreover, the waste of natural resources, and possibly the
alarming increase in the price of food, which have lately attracted so
much attention in America, are largely due to the fact that those who
cultivate the land do not intend to spend their lives upon it; and
without a rehabilitation of country life there can be no success for the
Conservation policy. Therefore, the Country Life movement deals with
what is probably the most important problem before the English-speaking
peoples at this time. Now the predominance of the towns which is
depressing the country is based partly on a fuller application of modern
physical science, partly on superior business organisation, partly on
facilities for occupation and amusement; and if the balance is to be
redressed, the country must be improved in all three ways. There must be
better farming, better business, and better living. These three are
equally necessary, but better business must come first. For farmers, the
way to better living is coöperation, and what coöperation means is the
chief thing the American farmer has to learn.
FOOTNOTES:
[9] In the capital of Virginia, to take one notable example, I have
witnessed a perfect ferment of social activity at one of the gatherings.
It brought together such an ideal combination of the best spirits in
both rural and urban life that I anticipate some striking developments
in rural civilization which will surely extend beyond the borders of the
State.
[10] I may mention Raiffeisen, Luzzati, Rocquigny, Bishop Grundtwig,
Henry W. Wolff, the Rev. T. A. Finlay, S.J., and most of the leaders in
agricultural organization in Great Britain and Ireland.
[11] See above, page 31.
[12] It may seem a small matter even for a footnote, but an unambiguous
terminology is so important to propagandist work that I must mention a
somewhat unfortunate use of the word 'coöperation' which prevails in
official and pedagogic circles. We hear of coöperative demonstration
work, coöperative education, coöperative lectures, and so forth.
Whenever a Government or State department, or an educational body works
with any other agency, and sometimes when they are only doing their own
work, they use the term, which is of course grammatically applicable
whenever two people work together--from matrimony down. If the word in
connection with agriculture could be retained for its technical sense,
so long established and well understood in Europe, the proposed movement
might be saved a good deal of confused thinking. Might not Government
and educational authorities substitute the word 'coördinated' so as to
preserve the distinction?
* * * * *
Printed in the United States of America.