The new state : $b Group organization the solution of popular governmentFollett, Mary Parker
Science
The new state : $b Group organization the solution of popular government
Follett, Mary Parker
Democracy; Political participation; Social psychology; State, The
We are now awaking to this need. In the past the American conception of
government has been a machine-made not a man-made thing. We have wanted
a perfect machine which could be set going like an international
exhibition by pressing the button, but who is going to press the button?
We have talked about the public without thinking that we were the
public, of public opinion as something quite distinct from any opinion
of our own. It is partly because men have not wanted the trouble of
governing themselves that they have put all their faith in “good”
officials and “good” charters. “I hate this school, I wish it would burn
up,” wrote a boy home, “there’s too much old self-government about it,
you can’t have any fun.” Many of us have not wanted that kind of
government.
The idea of the state as a collection of units has fatally misled us in
regard to our duty as citizens. A man often thinks of his share in the
collective responsibility for Boston as a 1/500,000 part of the whole
responsibility. This is too small a part to interest him, and therefore
he often disregards such an infinitesimal duty altogether. Of course we
tell him about little drops of water, little grains of sand etc., but
hitherto such eloquence has produced little effect. This is because it
is untrue. We must somehow make it clear that the part of every man in a
great city is not analogous to the grain of sand in the desert, it is
not a 1/500,000 part of the whole duty. It is a part so bound up with
every other part that no fraction of a whole can represent it. It is
like the key of a piano, the value of which is not in its being 1/56 of
all the notes, but in its infinite relations to all the other notes. If
that note is lacking every other note loses its value.
Another twist in our ideas which has tended to reduce our sense of
personal responsibility has been that we have often thought of democracy
as a happy method by which all our particular limitations are lost sight
of in the general strength. Matthew Arnold said, “Democracy is a force
in which the concert of a great number of men makes up for the weakness
of each man taken by himself.” But there is no mysterious value in
people conceived of all together. A lot of ignorant or a lot of bad
people do not acquire wisdom and virtue the moment we conceive them
collectively. There is no alchemy by which the poornesses and weaknesses
of the individual get transmuted in the group; there is no trick by
which we can lose them in the whole. The truth is that all that the
individual has or is enhances society, all that the individual lacks,
detracts from society. The state will become a splendid thing when each
one of us becomes a splendid individual. Democracy does not mean being
lost in the mass, it means the contribution of every power I possess to
social uses. The individual is not lost in the whole, he makes the
whole.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account