movement undertaken by leading church societies of various denominations
to have laws enacted, enforcing the observance of the Sabbath. They aim
to bring about by this means, a return to the habits of church-going and
Bible reading, as they were in the days of our forefathers. The very
existence of such a movement is sufficient evidence of the tendency they
seek to combat. Whether any law could be counted on to accomplish their
purpose is another question, which need not concern us for the time
being.
If we go back to our main thread of enquiry and draw together the
results of our observations, they seem to offer a comparatively simple
diagnosis of this supposedly mysterious disease which has gotten hold of
our young people. We have located the seat of the trouble and indicated
the nature of the developments which have, so to speak, thrown the
motives of conduct out of their accustomed balance.
Obedience, discipline, respect for authority and traditions,
consideration for others, fear of punishment, fear of consequences, fear
of God,--these great check-weights to self-interest, self-seeking, have
lost in weight and substance to such an extent that they no longer turn
the scales and point the way. If our diagnosis is on the whole correct,
we have finished with the first part of the problem.
_N.Y. Times_, July 5, 1921.--Says lax parents make boy felons.
Judge Talley analyzes youthful crime. Defiance begins at home.
Judge Alfred J. Talley of the Court of General Sessions told
several thousand persons gathered in the Mall in Central Park
for an Independence Day celebration by the Knights of Columbus
yesterday afternoon that modern American children are not
brought up with the proper respect for their parents, law and
order, or constituted authority, and that the fault lies with
their elders. Judge Talley described the situation as a
"cancer on the body politic." He drew a distinction between
liberty and license and said that his experience in the
criminal courts of New York had brought one great American
failing very strongly home to him.
"The one thing the American people lack to-day," he said, "is
a proper method for bringing up their children. I see the
results of this every day. The hardened criminals turn out to
be youths of 19 and 20 years who first thrust themselves
against law and order at 16 and 17 years, and who at 14 told
their fathers that they were leaving school--and left.
"Behind this hardened criminal stands the sullen drab figure
of a girl who tries to show how loyal she is to the vagabond
in the hands of the law. It all began with a misguided idea of
liberty. The youth is the one who told his father he had had
all the education he needed and promptly became a street
corner type, and the girl, she who silenced her mother when
bound for a dance by tossing aside criticism of the indecent
dress she wore.
"In our schools to-day the child stands defiant and the
teacher is unable to use the only kind of discipline that
would do any good. The parent at home fails to understand
disciplinary methods, and so we have the picture of the father
obeying the son instead of the son the father; and the mother
obeys the daughter."
To support his contention, Judge Talley said that statistics
supplied a few weeks ago by the New York State Prison
Commission showed the average age of penitentiary inmates to
be 19 years. "This means that they began their criminal
careers at 16 and 17, an age at which no Judge sends them to
State prison. What is to be done to stem this tide of youthful
depravity? There is only one way--we must encourage morality
in public and in private, which means that we must bring back
to our American life high standards and high ideals."
II
THE UP-TO-DATE PRINCIPLE
In the eyes of some good folks, the behavior of the girls and boys and
young married people to-day appears totally unprincipled; and the good
folks throw up their hands and declare "they can't understand it." As a
matter of fact, they haven't tried to understand it and most of them are
very far from understanding it.
There are nearly always two sides to a question--to any question--and no
matter how strongly your personal views may incline you to take one
side, before passing judgment, it is no more than common fairness to
give the other side a chance to explain and justify its attitude. There
is certainly very little chance of convincing your opponents that they
are wrong, unless you have a fairly clear notion of what it is they have
in mind.
It is quite natural for a grandmother to regard as "unprincipled," the
conduct of this new generation. It is obviously not controlled by the
same principles that she has lived by. She is impressed and disturbed
by the disappearance of her principles and the shocking effects. The
"impossible notions" that have apparently taken their place are beyond
her comprehension, but she certainly would not dignify them by the name
of principles.
But if these "impossible notions" are all that the new generation has to
go by, and if they represent its spirit and attitude toward the problem
of life, it makes little difference whether they be called principles or
not, a principle of some sort is involved in them.
The first thing to do, therefore, is to arrive at as clear an
understanding as possible as to what this principle is and what it
implies.
Very little observation is needed to arrive at the conclusion that the
essence of this new principle is the right of the individual nature to
its fullest expression, to its most untrammelled development.
A large proportion of the new generation may not be consciously aware of
this doctrine, or of their adhesion to it. But it is in the air and they
absorb it; it grows up within them, as an unconscious product of other
influences; it is present in those about them, and the "herd instinct"
causes them to adopt it.
There are also a number who have given thought to the subject and are
convinced of the soundness and progress of the new principle. They are
prepared to defend it and proclaim it with a touch of superiority. Here
and there, in magazine articles and newspapers, it is finding more or
less authoritative expression and endorsement.
The following quotations, for instance, are from an article which
appeared recently on the editorial page of the Hearst Newspapers. They
represent some views on education by a leading exponent of advanced
thought.
One great end of education that ought forever to be in mind is
that the greatest enemy of attainment, as it is indeed of life
itself, is Fear.
No man or woman can ever do good work, in the world, whatever
be the task, until he has stricken from his hands and head and
his heart the chains of Fear.
The very first lesson to teach a baby is to be unafraid.
Instead of that, fear is constantly resorted to in the family
and in the school-room. We bribe, we threaten, we wheedle, we
bull-doze. And by every such act, we do the child irreparable
harm.
You ought to be much more thankful to God that your child
defies you, than that he cringes before you.
It should always be kept in mind that what you are after with
your child is not that he should learn obedience, but that he
should learn how to govern himself.
The road to obedience is short, easy and nasty. All you need
is a big stick. If you can be cruel and brutal enough, the
little one will quickly learn to jump when you speak to him.
This is a part of the new principle, forcibly and typically expressed.
Is it any wonder that grandmother, brought up under the "Spare the rod,
and spoil the child" and "Children should be seen, not heard"
convictions, should find herself bewildered by such notions--that she
should deem them "impossible."
Another article of a somewhat different kind which appeared recently in
the Atlantic Monthly, was written by an Englishman, a moralist of the
modern school. His lesson is addressed to women and the main point of
it, developed in a most interesting and reassuring way, is that they are
too much afraid of conventional ideas, of public opinion. They should
not permit their aspirations and inclinations to be stifled by such
considerations, but have the courage to give freer rein to their inner
longings.
He refers, in his article, to the fact that American women are said to
be far more advanced in this respect than their English cousins and
approves of their example.
These, of course, are only scattered specimens of the many articles
which have appeared and will continue to appear in support of the new
principle.
And in this connection a rather curious side-light has come to my
attention repeatedly, within the past few years. Among a certain class
of people, especially those who pride themselves on superior
intelligence and advanced thought, there has been a pronounced revival
of interest and admiration for the free verse and freer morals of Walt
Whitman. He has been, so to speak, re-discovered and embraced as a guide
and a prophet. His creed of life, so exuberantly and defiantly
expressed, was the exalted importance of his own ego. Wherever his
desires led him, wherever joy for himself was to be found, there would
he go, unabashed and inconsiderate.
With these indications in mind, we may proceed to consider some actual
examples which will serve to illustrate.
A certain young woman is well-born and well-bred, occupying a prominent
social position, decidedly intelligent--and good-looking, to boot. She
has a husband of her own class and kind, who has always been devoted to
her, and three lovely children, two boys and a girl.
She has apparently given considerable thought to the problem of life,
and the point-of-view she arrived at finally would seem to be a typical
product of modern ideas.
She believes first and foremost in the absolute right of the individual
soul to recognize no master but itself--to follow out its desires and
aspirations to the fullest extent. She has a feeling of scorn and
contempt for conventions and conventional people. If you pay any
attention to them, or their narrow, sheep-like opinions, or allow them
to interfere in any way with your freedom of action, you are belittling
yourself and your self-respect.
You must never be afraid to obey your own impulses. They come from
within you, they are a part of your nature--your self--and that is where
your true duty lies. It is better that you should be true to yourself,
even at the expense of others, than that you should be afraid and
cowardly.
The very fact that a desire, or an impulse, makes itself felt within you
is the main point. It is not really the things you _do_ that matter so
much, as your _wish_ to do them. If you wish to do a thing, and hold
back out of cowardice, or fear of the consequences, that doesn't make
you any better--only weaker and worse. You can't deny that the wish was
there--without lying to yourself--so what's the use?
It is finer and braver to go on with it and attain at least the
satisfaction of a wish fulfilled.
"But," some one objects, "how about your obligations to others? Suppose
by doing the thing you wish, you will harm them?"
This little lady's answer to such an objection is usually accompanied by
a shrug and a mildly condescending expression.
"If you are going to keep bothering your head about the effect of your
actions on other people, might as well give up at the start and be a
nice little sheep. The game isn't worth the candle.
"Besides, there's more humbug in that than any of the other bromides,
weak natures prate about. Most people in this world have got to look out
for themselves. You can't hope to be anything, or do anything worth
while without occasionally treading on some one's toes. It has always
been that way and if you're honest with yourself, you may as well
recognize the fact and accept it philosophically.
"In most cases the harm that you do is much less than you imagine. That
usually takes care of itself, somehow."
If people bore her, she doesn't believe in pretending that they interest
her. She will not invite them to her house, or accept their invitations.
If she has agreed to go somewhere, where she expects to amuse herself
and then, at the last moment, no longer feels in the mood for it, she
calls it off. Or if in the meantime, something else turns up that she
would prefer to do, she does not hesitate to switch to the thing she
prefers.
If people don't like that, it is their affair. She has no intention of
cramping her freedom, denying her desires, on their account. What she
does means more to her than it does to anybody else. There is no good
reason for her to pretend to be any different from what she is.
Moreover, in this particular case, there can be very little doubt, among
those who know her, that she practices what she preaches. This, too, is
something which occurs more frequently in the new generation than it did
in the past. There is no great trouble in accommodating practice to
theory--or rather the theory accommodates itself very readily to the
kind of conduct which persons of this kind are ready to practice.
For instance, the lady in question wanted to visit Chinatown in one of
the large cities and arranged with a professional guide to be taken
there at night, alone with a girl friend. Among other things, they saw a
Chinaman smoking opium and this gave rise to a desire on her part to
experience the sensation for herself. The guide was prevailed upon, for
a consideration, to procure her an outfit and a supply of opium; and
that very night in her room she took a try at an opium dream. Why not?
At another time, at a cabaret party, she was introduced to a somewhat
notorious young man of the Bohemian world. He was obviously dissolute,
but talented and interesting. She danced with him, gave him
encouragement, invited him to her home and was not afraid to be seen
going about with him frequently on terms of intimacy. Among other
things, he was addicted to the cocaine habit--he sniffed the powder from
the back of his hand--and in due time he talked to her about it. He
presented her with a bottle of the drug and after that, she always had a
supply in reserve which she used when the impulse came. Why not?
If her husband had any objection to things that she did, he soon learned
to keep them to himself. She could not and would not tolerate any
interference with the rights of an individual soul. She must have the
same freedom that she conceded to him. The kind of thing he chose to do,
apart from her, was a matter for him to decide in accordance with his
nature. The same rule must apply to her. The days of slavery had passed.
Marriage was an arrangement between equals.
In due course of time, the husband had to leave her and the children for
war service. While he was away, she fell in with another talented and
dissipated Bohemian--a romantic-looking musician very much in the public
eye. Very quickly their infatuation for each other was a matter of open
comment on the part of the veriest on-looker. As he had the same idea
that she had about the rights of the individual, and the same contempt
for conventions and conventional people, there was no pretense of
concealment, no need of observing the proprieties.
When the husband returned from overseas, she informed him, with the
utmost candor of what had taken place. There was no shame and no
remorse. Why should there be? A simple statement of fact--the forces of
human nature in operation. She had found some one who appealed to her
impulses more strongly than he. That was a truth which had to be
accepted. The simplest way was to allow her to get a divorce.
But what of the children?
A very simple answer. Whether they went with their father or stayed with
their mother--or were taken by the grandparents--anything was really
better for children than being brought up in an atmosphere where all was
pretense and whence love had flown. Of course she loved her children and
always would, but if they grew up to be the right sort, they would
understand her motives and admire her the more for being true to
herself.
This case embodies the practical working of the new principle, carried
to an extreme.
Here is another example of a different order: Two pretty girls of
eighteen or twenty were talking together in the seat in front of me, in
a trolley car. They turned out to be telephone operators at central
switchboards. They were talking over their plans, which contemplated a
visit to the movies with two young men--a supper and dance afterwards.
The young men were still to be heard from and as the girls were going to
separate places of employment the question was how to let each other
know about final arrangements. For reasons best known to themselves, it
wouldn't be wise to attempt that over the 'phone--they had better meet
somewhere. Whereupon one of the girls suggested a place convenient to
them both, where they could slip out and meet each other--at four
o'clock. She would "plug in" all the terminals on her switchboard, so
that all the lines in that central would be reported "busy" when people
called up, and the other girl could do the same. Then they could talk
things over quietly. "Nothing to be afraid of." And so they agreed. Why
not?
Here is another symptom:
A married woman of my acquaintance is decidedly old-fashioned in her
respect for conventions and moral standards. She has a sweet and rather
shy daughter, who has been brought up closely under the mother's wing,
and has never lost the habit of asking and telling her mother
everything. She is seventeen.
One summer evening, recently, the daughter was called up on the 'phone
by one of her girl friends and asked to make one of the party, who were
arranging an impromptu dance at a private house. The girl friend and her
brother would stop for her in their car and bring her home afterwards.
When the invitation was referred to mother, after a moment of hesitation
and worry about the propriety of the proceeding, she gave her consent.
Shortly after, the friend and her brother stopped at the house and took
the daughter with them.
When she got back home, after midnight, she went to her mother's room
and told her, at her bed-side, what had happened.
After they got to the house where the dance was to be and the others had
all gathered there, it was decided for some reason to adjourn to another
house. To get to this other house, the daughter was put into an
automobile with a girl and two young men. She sat in front, beside the
young man who was driving. She knew him only slightly, had danced with
him a few times and thought him rather nice.
On the way, after chatting and joking, this young man stopped the car,
then suddenly kissed her and took her in his arms. She didn't know what
to do. When she looked around, she found that the same thing was going
on in the back seat between the other boy and girl.
The young man beside her wouldn't listen to her objections. They seemed
to take it for granted. If you liked each other, why shouldn't you? He
said he liked her.
The occurrence is fairly typical of up-to-date standards--except in one
particular. Most girls refrain from mentioning it to mother.
Here is another symptom, of slightly different complexion which applies
to married life and suggests the extent to which the new principle is
bearing fruit, in society circles.
It was brought to my notice, last summer, that in one colony on Long
Island where I happened to be, there were fourteen different houses
where the wife had deserted the family and the husband was keeping house
alone with the children. This was among members of the fashionable set.
In each of these cases, of course, the wife had come across some man
who, for the time being at least, appealed to her more than her husband
and a divorce had been obtained in some convenient way, or was in the
process of obtaining.
It usually happens when a discussion takes place concerning the
immorality of the present day, that some member of the party will
advance the opinion in a more or less authoritative way that the
tendency in question is confined almost entirely to the so-called upper
crust of society and is consequently not entitled to the significance
which is being attributed to it. The great mass of the people, in their
simple homes and simple communities, are not in the least contaminated
or disturbed by it. They are just as moral and clean-minded as they ever
were, probably more so. Among the rich and idle upper classes, there has
always been a lot of dissipation and immorality in all countries, at all
times. If America is getting a little more than usual of it, at present,
that is nothing to get excited about.
In the face of such sentiments, cheerily and forcibly expressed, the
average gossip and fault-finder is usually willing to acquiesce with a
shrug. And so the discussion ends with a feeling that an attempt has
been made to exaggerate the importance of a restricted and
unrepresentative class.
As a matter of fact, this kind of talk would appear to be founded on
neither accurate information nor sound reasoning.
As regards the lower and middle classes--including those in small
communities--especially those in small communities--it has been called
to my attention repeatedly by those in a position to know that the
change in standards, the so-called demoralization, has been quite as
extreme as among the upper crust. And this view is in accord with my own
notion.
Two important agents of the new movement are the automobile and the
moving picture show. The mechanic's daughter, the store-keeper's
daughter, the farmer's daughter like to go to the movies. It may be at
first the mother, or father, took care to find out who the daughter was
going with and how. A girl friend and her brother. How are they going?
In the friend's automobile. Another time the father runs the daughter
over to the friend's house in the Ford car. Another time the daughter
runs herself over to the friend's house in the Ford car. It is only a
short way. Or again, it is the friend's brother who stops for her, on
his way to get the sister. After a while, this going to the movies has
become such a frequent occurrence, that it is accepted as a matter of
course, without bother or comment. If perchance the daughter comes home,
some night, later than usual and the mother feels uneasy, the
explanation is very simple. Instead of going to the nearby theatre, the
daughter and her friend went over to a neighboring town where a more
interesting picture was showing. In the end the daughter goes off about
when she pleases and comes back in the same way.
Very often the stories she sees on the screen are largely seasoned with
material that stirs the imagination and emotions in a hectic sexual way.
If the girl and a young man get into a Ford car together to go home by
moonlight, is it to be wondered at that the car comes to a stop on the
lonely road and they forget old-fashioned proprieties?
The extent to which this sort of thing has been going on in many of the
small town communities, according to the information I have received, is
far too serious to be glossed over with easy optimism. In one relatively
small and primitive district I happened to know of, more than one-half
of the families with marriageable daughters have within the last three
years had to bear the shame of illegitimate off-spring.
In the cities and larger towns, the same tendency appears to be in full
swing among the shop-girls, stenographers, and daughters in the humbler
walks of life.
III
REASON AND EXPERIENCE
In any case, from the examples and indications which we have cited and
countless others of a similar kind which come within the experience of
almost every one, nowadays, there can be little room for doubt that the
new principle of conduct is very much in evidence throughout the length
and breadth of our land. Consciously or unconsciously, it is affecting
the character and determining the point-of-view of vast numbers in the
new generation.
If you attempt to reason with them and they are willing and intelligent
enough to express themselves frankly, their answer and justification for
the way they are going sums up about as follows:
"Why shouldn't I think of myself and do what I like and want, as often
as I get the chance?
"As long as I steer clear of the law and avoid breaking my neck, what
other consequences are there that I need to keep worrying about?