Economic development -- Social aspects; Social evolution; Social problems; Work
The more highly organised a society, the more range and force have its
component individuals. America is in the American. Athens was in the
Athenian. Where else? A member of some tiny social unit on a remote
island does not carry the same amount of social efficiency as a member
of a larger unit. This is the underlying natural law which makes for
general human unity, but which finds its misguided and injurious
expression in our doctrine of “imperialism.”
The normal line of enlargement is simply _an extension of functional
exchange_, a sharing of the highly specialised activities and advantages
of the larger society by the smaller. Every step of this really
beneficent process has been accompanied throughout history with the
utmost injury to all parties, by conquest and carnage, by insane pride
and cruelty; because we did not understand the process in which we were
the actors, but governed our conduct from ideals of egoism, localism,
and rapacity. This is especially plain in our time, because of the
enormous growth of industrial functions, and their inevitable spread
around the world.
The process is natural and in itself means increasing benefit to all
society; but, being grossly misunderstood by the highly specialised
individuals who carry out these processes, the beneficent results are
mingled with terrible evils. The social functionary who is evolved to
distribute some food, oil, or other necessity to a larger radius of
consumers than ever before, takes advantage of his position to
sequestrate a larger share for himself than was ever before possible.
The “master minds” who are able to manage these giant industries are
social products, called for and produced to meet the larger social needs
of our times, but they are still governed by economic theories suitable
to a South Sea Islander, and so we have that “malfeasance in office,” in
social office, which so shamefully blackens the face of nations to-day.
It is a fair inquiry to demand of the organic theory of Society a reason
for its development. Why should independent individuals have been led
into a combination which inevitably involves some personal loss and
injury, and has been made to involve such an enormous amount?
How are we to account for this higher life-form, in the iron economy of
nature? Many have seen the visible benefit to individuals which comes of
the Social relation. The fact that we help one another is plain enough;
but even that sum of benefit does not seem sufficient to justify the
social sacrifice; the loss of individual liberty, the life-long labour
at one thing; the growing distance between social man and the free,
simple, contented individual animal.
“I think I could turn and live with the animals, they are so placid
and self-contained.
“I stand and look at them long and long.
“They do not sweat and whine about their condition.
“They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins.
“They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account