physical point of view, it is equally true that several generations are
needed for the development of the moral and intellectual qualities. If
only through the consciousness of her _ego_, woman is called to take a
more important place in the life of nations.
From the dependent that she once was, woman will become the agent
required by her times. If she no longer receives from her comrade, as in
old Teutonic days, the cuirass, helmet, and sword, that she may fight by
his side, she will none the less endeavour to equal him in the field of
intellect.
The start which man has gained and still keeps in the realms of Science
and Art does not justify him in boasting over the inferiority of woman.
To sum up, woman claims no more than her right to-day when she demands
knowledge of all the occupations in which man is employed and reserves
for himself; when she desires to exercise her judgment and prove both
her skill and taste.
“Whereas in men,” says Louis Dimier, “taste, which is a power of the
mind, precedes and commands skill, which is organic aptitude; in women,
on the other hand, it seems to be skill which determines and commands
taste. One might say literally that with a woman the feeling for the
beautiful is in her fingers. All women, too, some more and some less,
but without exception, make use of their powers of action; but a man
cannot rely all his life on the possession of his capacity for
judgment.”
Yes, woman is, fundamentally, man’s equal. Belittled as she has been
till recently by conditions which made her a nonentity, she is now,
thanks to the spread of education, the mingling of classes, and social
changes, becoming a respected worker and a valued being. Born into a new
life, she will no longer be the jealous rival of man, but his useful
fellow-worker, as she has always been his generous comrade, sharing his
joys and sorrows.
THE EQUALISING OF CLASSES BY EDUCATION
The education which is the progressive adaptation of humanity to the
conditions of social life has been, in a general way, so greatly
developed by our modern civilisation, that it has, if not created the
complete equalisation of the classes, at least brought the aristocracy,
the middle classes, and the people together in a common effort towards
individual action.
It cannot be denied that a very curious phenomenon exists in the
equalisation so far effected, the causes of which are manifold, and
amongst which the most noticeable and obvious are the partition of large
fortunes, the importance assumed by Labour Syndicalism, and the
competition established in all trades and professions.
Scarcely anything remains now of the ancient conditions of nations; the
abolition of slavery has transformed the idea of servitude; compulsory
education has raised the level of the lower classes, and by this means
the first stone of the Socialistic edifice has been laid. But humanity,
in attaining to a higher degree of self-consciousness, to a new ideal,
has developed a spirit on new lines, and created for itself needs with
which the old instincts have nothing to do. Capitalists, manufacturers,
merchants, labour leaders, workpeople of all kinds, find themselves
arrayed against one another in a new perception of their rights (if not
always of their duties), and all, in the light of newly discovered
needs, are jostling one another in life in this all-pervading struggle.
The mass of the people, whose one instinct in former times was the bare
preservation of life, is on the way to emancipation; the pressure from
beneath is mounting like a wave, leaping upward to the social strata
where hitherto the monopoly of lucre and jobbery has been jealously
held; the workmen’s associations, in their war against capital, want
themselves to capitalise; members of the working class, with growing
improvement in education, are entering the professional field; the
middle classes are struggling for the attainment of public offices, and,
by an inevitable reaction, the aristocracy, mulcted of some of its
ancestral rights and privileges, is turning its eyes towards manufacture
and commerce.
This does not mean that the balance has become even, for I am of Jean
Lahor’s opinion: “The plutocrats may be preparing for the masses of the
future a still more crushing yoke, with more falsity and more deadening
effect--by the suggestions of the Press, which they have completely in
their power--than has ever been the case with aristocracies or
autocracies, whose authority had its origin at least in the finer human
energies, in a noble desire for power.”
It must nevertheless be recognised that, in order that the relations
between man and man should no longer be in the hands of those devoid of
conscience and feeling, a certain equality, a meeting on common ground
for action, has been already established in modern society; if the lower
classes have climbed the ladder far enough to attain to that domain
which seemed bound to remain in the hands of the higher, the latter, on
the other hand, have not hesitated to leave the heights to which class
prejudice might have held them, and invade the territory of trade and
commerce.
A man of high position will no longer lose caste by becoming the head of
a motor factory; a nobleman may take part in commercial enterprise, a
prince of the blood sell, in his own name, the products of his vineyards
and lands.
It is the same from the point of view of women. As they think more, as
they become carried away by the desire to prove their value and the need
for individual effort, the middle-class woman is reaching towards higher
and higher branches of education. Great ladies, even princesses, do not
disdain to draw profit from the industrial arts, from painting and
literature.
These new social conditions could not continue but by the spread and
improvement of education and the growing sense of justice as understood
by Herbert Spencer; that is to say, the responsibility of the individual
taken in connection with the need for social co-operation.
Complete equality will never exist; comparative equality must be based
on such liberty as, by its exercise, cannot infringe upon the liberties
of others.
It must not be forgotten that social harmony is the result of the
adjustment of conflicting rights and duties. One has to-day to take
into consideration the fact that the humblest artisan is working for the
good of society just as is the most famous engineer, the greatest
inventor, the noblest writer, or the most celebrated statesman.
Therefore, being “morally equal in duty, they are morally equal in
rights.”
Education, that leveller of castes, dispenser of good, justice, and
harmony, is the outcome of the experience of each utilised for the good
of all. It should come from ourselves as well as from others, and pass
through the way of reason.
“It is through the combined working of all systems of education and
hygiene,” says the author of _Pessimisme Heroïque_, “it is through the
combined energy of all educators and hygienists, that we shall with
certainty obtain some day fundamental reforms, and immense progress in
the physical, intellectual, and moral life of humanity.”
SOCIALISM
Opposed to Individualism, Socialism is the idea of social equality in
utilising the power, capital, property, labour, etc., of the community.
The generalisation of the term means a social compact, a contract
between the members of a society.
Born in the eighteenth century, with the theory of good to be shared by
the community, Socialism, which should be a united inherent organisation
of the social classes, and of the relations of different classes to one
another, has become divided into several hostile cliques. Each has its
partisans; there is Possibilist Socialism, the Socialism of Marx,
Agrarian Socialism, Parliamentary Socialism, English Municipal
Socialism, Collectivist Socialism, State Socialism, Christian Socialism,
Pulpit Socialism--and more for aught I know.
The very splitting up of the initial idea which aimed at the regulation
of the needs of society, proves that it is a very difficult thing to
create, in its entirety, a new social machine, capable of satisfying
everyone.
It is above all a question, in my opinion, of discovering a form of
association which shall defend and protect by its collective force the
person and property of each of its members, and through which each one,
while united to all, is answerable only to himself (apart from
obligations agreed upon), and remains free in his actions.
It should guarantee that no one should be rich enough to take anyone
into bondage, and that no one should be poor enough to be compelled to
sell himself.
Again, no man should be able to say: “I am hungry, I do not know how to
get food: I am cold, I have no means of warming myself: I am homeless, I
do not know where to rest my head.” No woman must need to make
merchandise of herself to escape starvation.
Man being no longer obliged to sell his physical strength or intellect,
woman no longer constrained to throw herself into the market, security
of life would exist for all, and a sort of equality would be
established.
But is not this equality a chimera, and can it exist in practice? Are
not abuses inevitable? How can the feelings and duties of everyone be
subject to rule, in such a way as to restrict the great as to their
wealth and power and the small as to their avarice and covetousness?
Socialism would have to impose a sort of economic equality which would
satisfy everyone; so that he who had climbed a few rungs of the social
ladder need not envy him who is already at the top. It must, in short,
do away with every cause of discontent, envy, and revenge, between the
classes who are compelled to have constant dealings with one another.
Thus would great social disorder be avoided. But it would be necessary
to keep clear of side issues, to take as the base of Socialism the
“simplifying of life,” always keeping an intellectual and spiritual
ideal as the end in view.
“The characteristic of social organisation,” says Nicati, “is to be the
means of information; a faithful medium between the individuals from
whom primarily all activity emanates, and with whom it ends: just as the
personal intellect intervenes in the emotional domain, between
impressions and the impulses to which they give rise.
“The function of this natural organisation conforms to the religious
principles regulating its formation and acts.
“Its ultimate object is to maintain harmony between men, as the
intellect maintains harmony amongst the emotions, and to unite them in a
common desire for equalisation, balance.
“The doctrine of the cultivation of an intellectual and spiritual ideal,
then, may be defined as a natural social organisation having for aim the
religious pursuit of good, remembering that we understand by ‘religious’
that which is consistent with the natural fabric of social relationship;
and by ‘good’ the necessary and natural result of all harmony, balance.”
In reality, however, it appears to me that social equilibrium is no
better established now than it was before. The weight which tipped one
side of the scale is now on the other. The drawbacks of the lack of
stability have not yet disappeared.
Why, for instance, should it be thought advantageous that one class, now
in possession, be completely despoiled to profit another class, which
would then take its place? Whether the inequality existed as from the
heights downwards or from the depths upwards, would not the results be
exactly the same? Is not the supreme power as dangerous in the hands of
the many as in the hands of the privileged?
If it be true that man has a natural right to all that he needs, it is
none the less true that his “right” should not exceed the limits of the
needful.
In spite of all theories, the social organisation of humanity is not in
existence yet, and will not exist so long as society fails to comprehend
that its aim is to satisfy the needs of each one, in the order in which
they become manifest.
THE WORKING CLASSES
The part played by the working man in modern society is of extreme
importance. This producer of national wealth is the artery which keeps
the heart of a country beating.
Jean Lahor says: “The wealth, power, and glory of the country are, in
great part, the work of the humblest of her children--of the artisan,
the worker, the common soldier, of unknown heroes of whom no one speaks,
never will speak; silent whilst in life as they will be when dead.”
Lord Avebury, too, says: “It is an interesting illustration of the Unity
of Man, and an encouragement to those of us who have no claims to
genius, that though, of course, there have been exceptions, still, on
the whole, periods of progress have generally been those when a nation
has worked and felt together; the advance has been due not entirely to
the efforts of a few great men, but of their countrymen generally; not
to a single genius, but to a national effort.”
Then, since the working man is the great factor in national greatness,
it is but just that he should be an object of consideration for the
thinkers. This is a truth: the education received by the working man is
not consistent with the place which he occupies in the State.
I have in mind, for the children of the working class, schools specially
adapted to that class, where the child should be taught his rôle in life
as a sort of religion; his employer of the future appearing as a kind of
protective deity. The child destined to become an artisan should be made
to understand, from the most tender age, not to regard himself as a mere
tool, but as the most active element in society. He should be inculcated
with pride in his condition, not have his temper embittered and be
taught to hate the upper classes, which are, from another point of view,
a vital element equally with his own class. The working classes--and
this is a point which Socialism and Evolutionism have failed to
recognise--should form a majority set apart in the nation, not for the
purpose of excluding them from the common good, but, on the contrary,
for their advantage, as being the most active and least fortunate.
In all countries which recognise wherein their strength consists, the
working man should be the object of constant care on the part of the
administration; he should be recompensed according to his merits, and
receive help in his needs. The entire health of a country depends so
much on that of the working population, that dwellings built in
accordance with the most perfect sanitary conditions, public baths and
wash-houses, national parks as in America, and institutes where he could
educate himself to a higher mental life, should be guaranteed to the
working man.
It is very strange that, in democratic countries, the most urgent
reforms are generally delayed, that they put off the amelioration of the
wretched conditions prevailing amongst the humblest--yet, by numbers and
activity, the strongest--class; amelioration which is first carried out
in aristocratic countries, such as England.
When French hospitals, for instance, are compared with those in England,
Germany, and Russia, a clear idea is gained of the great difference,
which does honour to the latter countries.
It is said that the first idea of working men’s dwellings originated in
France. I admit it; but they only came into existence there after
England and Belgium had set the example.
Where in the great French centres will you find the garden cities of
England and Germany? Even in the matter of food, from the point of view
of price and quality, the French artisan has reason to envy his English
neighbour.
The artisan is too cramped by material conditions and constant labour,
too much cut off from men superior in mental training to himself; he
needs to be taken out of his sordid environment, allowed to acquire
property of his own, to give him a taste for home life.
When legislators and rulers, teachers and employers, have taught the
working man to recognise his own character and claim respect for his
value to society, a thousand rational reforms will spring into being
spontaneously.
It seems to me that in manufacturing centres every house should be a
temple of fraternity. I will give an illustration: An artisan marries.
His wife and he live in a very small house, which, after the birth of
their children becomes too cramped for them, and inadequate from a
hygienic point of view. Close by, there is an artisan living in a much
larger house, as he has had a large family. The children, having grown
up, have left their parents, and for this reason the house has become
much too large for them. The couple whose family have gone take the
little dwelling, and the houseful of children move into the large one.
In this way a kindly interchange is made in response to particular
requirements; hence, a share of happiness for everyone, and health for
all.
Utopia! someone will say. Why? There is really nothing simpler. But
then, unfortunately, the simple is always hostile to reason.
DOMESTIC SERVICE
Since the disappearance of slavery, domestic service has taken on new
forms--variable, oppressive--and now it seems likely to disappear
altogether. The terms, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, misunderstood by
some, misconstrued by others, have created great disquietude in society.
The servant of former days--the wage-earning man or woman--who formed an
integrant part of the family, exists no longer, and those succeeding
have changed the old ways and manners to the point of rendering them
unacceptable--from the time when _attachment_ disappeared before a false
conception of _liberty_. So that to-day, amongst people of only moderate
means, the lack of servants is becoming a serious problem, although
changing fashions and the competition in “special lines of work” secures
us assistance in much of our daily business.
We occupy ourselves with workmen’s dwellings, have honestly sought to
secure better conditions for the poor; why should we not consider the
case of those blocks of flats where the closeness of the quarters has
become one of the principal hindrances to the “good and loyal service”
so much appreciated by our forbears?
Servants in these days consider themselves as employees of a special
kind, able to dictate their own terms and exempt from various duties.
Their service, continuous and dearly paid, is no longer suitable except
in palaces and large private houses.
In these they form a community of their own which is not, each member of
it individually, every moment of the day in direct contact with the
master and mistress. In such cases as these one scarcely realises the
irritating position of servants with regard to their employers, and vice
versa.
The question to be considered is that of small establishments and blocks
of dwellings in large towns where, for the sake of greater
accommodation, the employers’ and the servants’ quarters are close
together, perhaps only divided by glass doors and thin partitions. Now,
to ensure respect for the master and mistress in their private life,
and willing obedience from the servants, distance in point of fact
should be in proportion to distance in point of position and education.
“No great man is a hero to his valet,” says the proverb. This proverb is
unfortunately true. It describes an evil which has grown to such a
degree as to make domestic service in apartments impossible.
In America this question is almost completely settled. In England the
example set by the United States is beginning to be followed. The
Continent in its turn should evolve some practical expedient for the
independence of both employer and employee.
To this end there should be a system of “service by the hour.” This will
have to be arranged in view of the fear that we may find ourselves
servantless. It does not imply that the service now extant will
disappear entirely.
Like all innovations, my suggestion will at first alarm some and bring a
smile to others; it will seem paradoxical in spite of its simplicity.
However, I will explain my idea.
It is not to be denied that we have become servants to our domestics,
for they dictate terms on entering our service, and we are compelled to
accept their conditions for fear of finding ourselves boycotted and
unable to get them at all. In America--I quote typical cases--people
have ceased to have their meals at home on Sunday because the _chef_ or
cook spends that day in the country. In England ladies’ maids refuse to
wait up for their mistresses’ return from evening parties. (I knew an
unmarried lady who was compelled to sleep one night dressed as she was
because her maid, having locked herself into her room, declined to get
up to unfasten her dress for her!) In Germany the servants make it a
condition that they shall spend so many evenings at masked balls; in
France a weekly or fortnightly “day off” is one of the least
inconveniences created by domestic service.
Is it not the truth that in flats, if one had a woman in in case of
need, and a sort of watchman to guard against burglars, nothing more
would be needed?
“Service by the hour” would have the advantage of providing regular
attendance, and the servants themselves would earn more; they would not
be obliged to listen to the voice of command from the same master or
mistress all day long; they could choose the kind of service they
preferred, just as the employer could choose his employees. There would
be more freedom on both sides: the one party would work more
conscientiously, the other enjoy greater peace of mind. There would be
less friction, more justice, all round. In the absence of close
proximity there would be no more irritating surveillance, no fear of
gossip, no ill-temper over work ill-done or neglected.
If you have a masseur or masseuse, even a “bath attendant,” a
hairdresser, a manicurist, a packer, a “vacuum cleaner,” and a floor
polisher, what remains for you to ask of your servants?
If a woman can come and fetch your dresses to be ironed or “freshened,”
and a man do the same with your coats, and someone else come and polish
your boots, is not that all-important?
Companies for “service by the hour” would have to be established in
different districts. According to one’s needs he would telephone to one
of these establishments for a bath attendant, for someone to truss
poultry, for housework, etc.
And then how delightful it would be to be alone again, no longer spied
upon, to be one’s own master--without any servants!
“But the expense!” someone will say. If you calculate what the servants
living in your house cost you in one way and another, you will come to
the conclusion that there would be less expense for the employer and
certain profit for the servants, whose service by the hour would be
better paid.
In some of these modern blocks of dwellings there is but one common
kitchen. It would be sufficient to mention the hour for meals and the
number to be served to ensure regular attendance.
“Service by the hour” would do away with a thousand annoyances, some
merely irritating by their frequency, but others serious, as in England,
for instance, where the evidence of servants has so much weight in cases
of divorce.
With “service by the hour” there would be no more spying, no more mean
revenges, no more dishonourable compromises. As the lower classes have
shaken off the yoke of their slavery, why should we still be the victims
of a new state of things in matters domestic?
There is no perfect happiness without real independence. Let us aim at
independence for everyone.
In doing good in a new way the human end in view has not changed. Let us
bear in mind that good for all is only found in individual freedom.
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS
Now that the different peoples fraternise over science, commerce, and
industry, now that they are jointly liable, in the name of economic
relations, now that collective work, free from “national etiquette,” is
instrumental in producing material and moral progress for all,
international schools ought to be founded in the different civilised
countries.