SOCIAL ARCHITECTS.
Thus far we have been disposing of the preludes of Fourierism. Before
commencing the memoirs of the regular PHALANXES (which is the proper
name of the Fourier Associations), we will devote a chapter or two to
general views of Fourierism, as compared with other forms of
Socialism, and as it was practically developed in this country.
Parke Godwin was one of the earliest and ablest of the American
expositors of Fourierism; second only, perhaps, to Albert Brisbane. In
his "_Popular View of the Doctrines of Charles Fourier_" (an octavo
pamphlet of 120 pages published in 1844), he has a chapter on "Social
Architects," in which he proposes the following classification:
"These daring and original spirits arrange themselves in three
classes; the merely Theoretical; the simply Practical; and the
Theoretico-Practical combined. In other words, the Social
Architects whom we propose to consider, may be described as
those who ideally plan the new structure of society; those who
set immediately to work to make a new structure, without any
very large and comprehensive plan; and those who have both
devised a plan and attempted its actual execution.
"I. The Theoretical class is one which is most numerous, but
whose claims are the least worthy of attention. [Under this
head, Mr. Godwin mentions Plato, Sir Thomas More and Harrington,
and discusses their imaginative projects--the Republic, Utopia
and Oceana.]
"II. The Practical Architects of Society, or the Communities
instituted to exemplify a more perfect state of social life.
[The Essenes, Moravians, Shakers and Rappites are mentioned
under this head.]
"III. The Theoretico-Practical Architects of Society, or those
who have combined the enunciation of general principles of
social organization with actual experiments, of whom the best
representatives are St. Simon, Robert Owen and Charles Fourier.
This class will extend the basis of our inquiries, and demand a
more elaborate consideration."
This classification, if it had not gone beyond the popular pamphlet in
which it was started, might have been left without criticism. But it
is substantially reproduced in the New American Cyclopaedia under the
head of "Socialism," and thus has become a standard doctrine. We will
therefore point out what we conceive to be its errors, and indicate a
truer classification.
In the first place, from the account of St. Simon and Fourier which
Mr. Godwin himself gives immediately after the last of his three
headings, it is clear that they did _not_ belong to the
theoretico-practical class. St. Simon undertook to perfect himself in
all knowledge, and for this purpose experimented in many things, good
and bad; but it does not appear that he ever tried his hand at
Communism or Association of any kind. He published a book called "New
Christianity," of which Godwin says:
"It was an attempt to show, what had been often before attempted, that
the spirit and practice of religion were not at one; that there was a
wide chasm separating the revelation from the commentary, the text
from the gloss, the Master from the Disciples. Nothing could have been
more forcible than its attacks on the existing church, in which the
Pope and Luther received an equal share of the blows. He convicted
both parties of errors without number, and heresies the most
monstrous. But he did not carry the same vigor into the development of
the positive portions of his thought. He ceased to be logical, that he
might be sentimental. Yet the truth which he insisted on was a great
one--perhaps the greatest, _viz._, that the fundamental principle in
the constitution of society, should be Love. Christ teaches all men,
he says, that they are brothers; that humanity is one; that the true
life of the individual is in the bosom of his race; and that the
highest law of his being is the law of progress."
On the basis of this sentimentalism, St. Simon appealed most
eloquently to all classes to unite--to march as one man--to inscribe
on their banners, "Paradise on earth is before us!" but Godwin says:
"Alas! the magnanimous spirit which could utter these thrilling words
was not destined to see their realization. The long process of
starvation finally brought St. Simon to his end; but in the sufferings
of death, as in the agony of life, his mind retained its calmness and
sympathy, and he perished with these words of sublime confidence and
hope on his lips: 'The future is ours!'
"The few devoted friends who stood round that deathbed, took up the
words, and began the work of propagation. The doctrine rapidly spread;
it received a more precise and comprehensive development under the
expositions of Bazard and Enfantan; and a few years saw a new family,
which was also a new church, gathered at Menilmontant. On its banner
was inscribed, 'To each, according to his capacity, and to each
capacity according to its work.' Its government took the form of a
religious hierarchy, and its main political principle was the
abolition of inheritance.
"It was evident that a society so constituted could not long be held
together. Made up of enthusiasts, without definite principles of
organization, trusting to feeling and not to science, its members soon
began to quarrel, and the latter days of its existence were stained by
disgusting license. St. Simon was one of the noblest spirits, but an
unfit leader of any enterprise. He saw all things, says a friendly
critic, through his heart. In this was his weakness; he wanted head;
he wanted precise notions; he vainly hoped to reconstruct society by a
sentiment; he laid the foundations of his house on sand."
What is there in all this that entitles St. Simon to a place among the
theoretico-practicals? How does it appear that he "combined the
enunciation of general principles of social organization with actual
experiments?" His followers tried to do something; but St. Simon
himself, according to this account, did absolutely nothing but write
and talk; and far from being a theoretico-practical, was not even
theoretical, but only sentimental!
Fourier was theoretical enough. But we look in vain through Mr.
Godwin's account of him for any signs of the practical. He meditated
much and wrote many books, and that is all. He was a student and a
recluse to the end of his career. Instead of engaging in any practical
attempt to realize his social theories, he quarreled with the only
experiment that was made by his disciples during his life. Godwin
says:
"A joint-stock company was formed in 1832, to realize the new
theory of Association; and one gentleman, M. Baudet Dulary,
member of parliament for the county of Seine and Oise, bought an
estate, which cost him five hundred thousand francs (one hundred
thousand dollars), for the express purpose of putting the theory
into practice. Operations were actually commenced; but for want
of sufficient capital to erect buildings and stock the farm, the
whole operation was paralyzed; and notwithstanding the natural
cause of cessation, the simple fact of stopping short after
having commenced operations, made a very unfavorable impression
upon the public mind. Success is the only criterion with the
indolent and indifferent, who do not take the trouble to reason
on circumstances and accidental difficulties.
"Fourier was very much vexed at the precipitation of his
partisans, who were too impatient to wait until sufficient means
had been obtained. They argued that the fact of having commenced
operations would attract the attention of capitalists, and
insure the necessary funds. He begged them to beware of
precipitation; told them how he had been deceived himself in
having to wait more than twenty years for a simple hearing,
which, from the importance of his discovery, he had fully
expected to obtain immediately. All his entreaties were in vain.
They told him he had not obtained a hearing sooner because he
was not accustomed to the duplicity of the world; and confident
in their own judgment, commenced without hesitation, and were
taught, at the expense of their own imprudence, to appreciate
more correctly the sluggish indifference of an ignorant public."
Not only did Fourier thus wholly abstain from practical experiments
himself and discourage those of others during his lifetime, but he
condemned in advance all the experiments that have since been made in
his name. He set the conditions of a legitimate experiment so high,
that it has been thus far impossible to make a fair trial of
Fourierism, and probably always will be. How Mr. Godwin could imagine
him to be one of the theoretico-practicals, we do not understand. His
system seems to us to have been as thoroughly separate from
experiment, as it was possible for him to make it; and in that sense,
as far removed from the modern standards of science, as the east is
from the west. It can be defended only as a theory that came by
inspiration or intuition, and therefore needs no experiment.
Considered simply as the result of human lucubrations, it belongs with
the _a priori_ theories of the ancient world, of which Youmans says:
"The old philosophers, disdaining nature, retired into the ideal world
of pure meditation, and holding that the mind is the measure of the
universe, they believed they could reason out all truths from the
depths of the soul."
Owen, Mr. Godwin's third example, was really a theoretico-practical
man; i.e. he attempted to carry his theories into practice--with what
success we have seen. Instead of classing St. Simon and Fourier with
him, we should name Ballou and Cabet as his proper compeers.
Another error of Mr. Godwin is, in representing Plato as merely
theoretical; meaning that the Republic, like the Utopia and Oceana,
was "sketched as an exercise of the imagination or reason, rather than
as a plan for actual experiment." It is recorded of Plato in the
American Cyclopaedia, that "he made a journey to Syracuse in the vain
hope of realizing, through the new-crowned younger Dionysius, his
ideal Republic." Thus, though he never made an actual experiment, he
wished and intended to do so; which is quite as much as St. Simon and
Fourier ever did.
Mr. Godwin seems also to underrate the Practical Architects: i.e.
those that we have called the successful Communities. It is hardly
fair to represent them as merely practical. The Shakers certainly have
a theory which is printed in a book; and there is no reason to doubt
that such thinkers as Rapp, and Bimeler of the Zoarites, and the
German nobleman that led the Ebenezers, had socialistic ideas which
they either worked by or worked out in their practical operations, and
which would compare favorably at least with the sentimentalisms of the
first French school. If St. Simon and Owen and Fourier are to be
called the theoretico-practicals, such workers as Ann Lee, Elder
Meacham, Rapp, and Bimeler ought at least to be called the
practico-theoreticals.
Indeed these Practical Architects, who have actually given the world
examples of successful Communism, have certainly contributed more to
the great socialistic movement of modern times, than they have credit
for in Godwin's classification, or in public opinion. We called
attention, in the course of our sketch of the Owen movement, to the
fact that Owen and his disciples studied the social economy of the
Rappites, and were not only indebted to them for the village in which
they made their great experiment, but leaned on them for practical
ideas and hopes of success. These facts came to us at the first
without our seeking them. But since then we have watched occasionally,
in our readings of the socialistic journals and books, for indications
that the Fourierist movement was affected in the same way by the
silent successful examples; and we have been surprised to see how
constantly the Shakers, Ebenezers &c., are referred to as
illustrations of the possibilities and benefits of close Association.
We will give a few examples of what we have found.
_The Dial_, which was the nurse of Brook Farm and of the beginnings of
Fourierism in this country, has two articles devoted to the Shakers.
One of them entitled "A Day with the Shakers," is an elaborate and
very favorable exhibition of their doctrines and manner of life. It
concludes with the following observation:
"The world as yet but slightingly appreciates the domestic and humane
virtues of this recluse people; and we feel that in a record of
attempts for the actualization of a better life, their designs and
economies should not be omitted, especially as, during their first
half century, they have had remarkable success."
The other article, entitled the "Millennial Church," is a flattering
review of a Shaker book. In it occurs the following paragraph:
"It is interesting to observe, that while Fourier in France was
speculating on the attainment of many advantages by union, these
people have, at home, actually attained them. Fourier has the merit of
beautiful words and theories; and their importation from a foreign
land is made a subject for exultation by a large and excellent portion
of our public; but the Shakers have the superior merit of excellent
actions and practices; unappreciated, perhaps, because they are not
exotic. 'Attractive Industry and Moral Harmony,' on which Fourier
dwells so promisingly, have long characterized the Shakers, whose
plans have always in view the passing of each individual into his or
her right position, and of providing suitable, pleasant, and
profitable employment for every one."
Miss Peabody, in the article entitled "Christ's Idea of Society," from
which we quoted in a former chapter, thus refers to the practical
Communities:
"The temporary success of the Hernhutters, the Moravians, the Shakers,
and even the Rappites, has cleared away difficulties and solved
problems of social science. It has been made plain that the material
goods of life, 'the life that now is,' are not to be sacrificed (as by
the anchorite) in doing fuller justice to the social principle. It has
been proved, that with the same degree of labor, there is no way to
compare with that of working in a Community, banded by some sufficient
Idea to animate the will of the laborers. A greater quantity of wealth
is procured with fewer hours of toil, and without any degradation of
the laborer. All these Communities have demonstrated what the
practical Dr. Franklin said, that if every one worked bodily three
hours daily, there would be no necessity of any one's working more
than three hours."
A writer in _The Tribune_ (1845) at the end of a glowing account of
the Ebenezers, says:
"The labor they have accomplished and the improvements they have made
are surprising; it speaks well for the superior efficiency of combined
effort over isolated and individual effort. A gentleman who
accompanied me, and who has seen the whole western part of this State
settled, observed that they had made more improvements in two years,
than were made in our most flourishing villages when first settled, in
five or six."
In _The Harbinger_ (1845) Mr. Brisbane gives an account of his visit
to the same settlement, and concludes as follows:
"It is amazing to see the work which these people have
accomplished in two years; they have cleared large fields, and
brought them under cultivation; they have built, I should judge,
forty comfortable houses, handsomely finished and painted white;
many are quite large. They have the frame-work for quite an
additional number prepared; they are putting up a large woolen
manufactory, which is partly finished; they have six or eight
large barns filled with their crops, and others erecting, and
some minor branches of manufactures. I was amazed at the work
accomplished in less than two years. It testifies powerfully in
favor of combined effort."
But enough for specimens. Such references to the works of the
Practical Architects are scattered everywhere in socialistic
literature. The conclusion toward which they lead is, that the
successful religious Communities, silent and unconspicuous as they
are, have been, after all, the specie-basis of the entire socialistic
movement of modern times. A glimmering of this idea seems to have
been in Mr. Godwin's mind, when he wrote the following:
"If, in spite of their ignorance, their mistakes, their
imperfections, and their despotisms, the worst of these
societies, which have adopted, with more or less favor, unitary
principles, have succeeded in accumulating immeasurable wealth,
what might have been done by a Community having a right
principle of organization and composed of intellectual and
upright men? Accordingly the discovery of such a principle has
become an object of earnest investigation on the part of some of
the most acute and disinterested men the world ever saw. This
inquiry has given rise to our third division, called
theoretico-practical architects of society."
The great facts of modern Socialism are these: From 1776--the era of
our national Revolution--the Shakers have been established in this
country; first at two places in New York; then at four places in
Massachusetts; at two in New Hampshire; two in Maine; one in
Connecticut; and finally at two in Kentucky, and two in Ohio. In all
these places prosperous religious Communism has been modestly and yet
loudly preaching to the nation and the world. New England and New York
and the great West have had actual Phalanxes before their eyes for
nearly a century. And in all this time what has been acted on our
American stage, has had England, France and Germany for its audience.
The example of the Shakers has demonstrated, not merely that
successful Communism is subjectively possible, but that this nation is
free enough to let it grow. Who can doubt that this demonstration was
known and watched in Germany from the beginning; and that it helped
the successive experiments and emigrations of the Rappites, the
Zoarites and the Ebenezers? These experiments, we have seen, were
echoes of Shakerism, growing fainter and fainter, as the time-distance
increased. Then the Shaker movement with its echoes was sounding also
in England, when Robert Owen undertook to convert the world to
Communism; and it is evident enough that he was really a far-off
follower of the Rappites. France also had heard of Shakerism, before
St. Simon or Fourier began to meditate and write Socialism. These men
were nearly contemporaneous with Owen, and all three evidently obeyed
a common impulse. That impulse was the sequel and certainly in part
the effect of Shakerism. Thus it is no more than bare justice to say,
that we are indebted to the Shakers more than to any or all other
Social Architects of modern times. Their success has been the solid
capital that has upheld all the paper theories, and counteracted the
failures, of the French and English schools. It is very doubtful
whether Owenism or Fourierism would have ever existed, or if they had,
whether they would have ever moved the practical American nation, if
the facts of Shakerism had not existed before them, and gone along
with them.
But to do complete justice we must go a step further. While we say
that the Rappites, the Zoarites, the Ebenezers, the Owenites, and even
the Fourierites are all echoes of the Shakers, we must also
acknowledge that the Shakers are the far-off echoes of the PRIMITIVE
CHRISTIAN CHURCH.