{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_75654/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_75654","id":"gutenberg_75654","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75654","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Other","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Utopias"],"text":"Transcriber\u2019s Note: Italics are enclosed in _underscores_. Additional\nnotes will be found near the end of this ebook.\n\n\n\n\nTHE STORY OF UTOPIAS\n\n\n\n\n                                  THE\n                            STORY OF UTOPIAS\n\n                          IDEAL COMMONWEALTHS\n                                  AND\n                              SOCIAL MYTHS\n\n\n                                   BY\n                             LEWIS MUMFORD\n\n                          With an Introduction\n                                   by\n                        HENDRIK WILLEM VAN LOON\n\n\n                     \u201c_A Map of the World that\n                     does not include Utopia is not\n                     worth even glancing at._...\u201d\n\n\n                      GEORGE G. HARRAP & CO. LTD.\n                      LONDON    CALCUTTA    SYDNEY\n\n\n\n\n                            _Published 1923\n                    by_ GEORGE G. HARRAP & CO. LTD.\n             _39\u201341 Parker Street, Kingsway, London, W.C.2_\n\n\n\n\nACKNOWLEDGMENTS\n\n\nThe first outline of this book dates back ten years; and since then I\nhave woven it and rewoven it in my mind. The actual work of composition\nwas started by a suggestion from Mr. Van Wyck Brooks; and without Mr.\nBrooks\u2019 encouragement I should perhaps never have begun or carried\nthrough the task. The general background of ideas has been heavily\ncolored by my contacts with Professor Patrick Geddes, through his\nbooks and by correspondence; and I owe a debt to him I have not always\nbeen able to acknowledge in direct reference or in quotation marks. I\ntake the opportunity here to express the hearty gratitude which might\notherwise have been conveyed in the more archaic form of a dedication.\n\nIn the revision of the MS. I have been blessed with the generous advice\nand criticism of a number of friends; in particular, Mr. Clarence\nBritten, Mr. Herbert Feis, Mr. Geroid Robinson, and Miss Sophia\nWittenberg, each of whom performed a unique service. To Messrs. Victor\nBranford and Alexander Farquharson of the Sociological Society of Great\nBritain I am indebted for many pertinent suggestions. My thanks are\nalso due to the editors of The Freeman for permission to use extracts\nfrom two articles: Towards a Humanist Synthesis and Beauty and the\nPicturesque. Finally, Mr. Hendrik van Loon\u2019s friendly interest calls\nfor a departing beam of gratitude.\n\n                                                        LEWIS MUMFORD.\n\nNew York City.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n           _Introduction by Hendrik Willem van Loon, Ph.D._\n\n\n  CHAPTER ONE\n\n  How the will-to-utopia causes men to live in two worlds, and\n      how, therefore, we re-read the Story of Utopia--the other\n      half of the Story of Mankind.                                    9\n\n\n  CHAPTER TWO\n\n  How the Greeks lived in a New World, and utopia seemed just\n      round the corner. How Plato in the Republic is chiefly\n      concerned with what will hold the ideal city together.          27\n\n\n  CHAPTER THREE\n\n  How something happened to utopia between Plato and Sir Thomas\n      More; and how utopia was discovered again, along with the\n      New World.                                                      57\n\n\n  CHAPTER FOUR\n\n  How the new Humanism of the Renascence brings us within sight\n      of Christianopolis; and how we have for the first time a\n      glimpse of a modern utopia.                                     79\n\n\n  CHAPTER FIVE\n\n  How Bacon and Campanella, who have a great reputation as\n      utopians, are little better than echoes of the men who\n      went before them.                                              101\n\n\n  CHAPTER SIX\n\n  How something happened in the eighteenth century which made\n      men \u201cfuriously to think,\u201d and how a whole group of\n      utopias sprang out of the upturned soil of industrialism.\n                                                                     111\n\n\n  CHAPTER SEVEN\n\n  How some utopians have thought that a good community rested\n      at bottom on the right division and use of land; and what\n      sort of communities these land-animals projected.              131\n\n\n  CHAPTER EIGHT\n\n  How \u00c9tienne Cabet dreamed of a new Napoleon called Icar, and\n      a new France called Icaria; and how his utopia, with that\n      which Edward Bellamy shows us in Looking Backward, gives\n      us a hint of what machinery might bring us to if the\n      industrial organization were nationalized.                     149\n\n\n  CHAPTER NINE\n\n  How William Morris and W.\u00a0H. Hudson renew the classic\n      tradition of utopias; and how, finally, Mr. H.\u00a0G. Wells\n      sums up and clarifies the utopias of the past, and brings\n      them into contact with the world of the present.               171\n\n\n  CHAPTER TEN\n\n  How the Country House and Coketown became the utopias of the\n      modern age; and how they made the world over in their\n      image.                                                         191\n\n\n  CHAPTER ELEVEN\n\n  How we reckon up accounts with the one-sided utopias of the\n      partisans.                                                     235\n\n\n  CHAPTER TWELVE\n\n  How the half-worlds must go, and how eutopia may come; and\n      what we need before we can build Jerusalem in any green\n      and pleasant land.                                             265\n\n\n  BIBLIOGRAPHY                                                       309\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\nIt is a sunny day and I am sitting on the top of a mountain.\n\nUntil this morning, it had been the mountain of a fairy story that was\ntwenty centuries old.\n\nNow, it is a mighty hill and I can feel its warm coat of white\nreindeer-moss, and if I were willing to stretch out my hand, I could\npluck the red berries that are in full bloom.\n\nA hundred years from now it will be gone.\n\nFor it is really a large chunk of pure iron, dumped by a playful\nProvidence in the very heart of Lapland.\n\nDo you remember an old tale of Norse mythology? How somewhere, far in\nthe north, there stood a high peak of iron, which was a hundred miles\nhigh and a hundred miles wide? And how a little bird came to it once\nevery thousand years to sharpen its beak? And how, when the mountain\nwas gone, a single second of all eternity would have passed by?\n\nI heard it told as a child.\n\nI remembered it always, and I told it to my own boys when they began\nto learn history. It seemed the invention of some prehistoric Hans\nChristian Andersen. It belonged to the imaginary scenery of our dreams.\n\nThe story has come true, and I have found my old mountain where I least\nexpected it.\n\nTo make the cycle of coincidence perfect, this hill was named after\na bird. The Lapp, with a fine sense of sound, called the ptarmigan\n\u201cKiru.\u201d Kirunavaara no longer hears the shrill \u201ckiru-kiru\u201d of rising\nbirds. Twice a day it listens to the terrific detonation of half a\nhundred charges of dynamite.\n\nThen it is shaken by the little trains which carry the rock to the\nvalley.\n\nIn the evening, it sees the lights of the large electric engines\nwhich hoist the valuable metal across the arctic wilderness of Lake\nTornotrask.\n\nTwo months later, the ore has been melted and worked into those modern\narticles of trade which go by the name of bridges and automobiles and\nships and apartment houses and a thousand other things which once\npromised to elevate man from the ranks of the beasts of burden.\n\nWhat has become of that promise, the survivors of the last eight years\nknow with great if gruesome accuracy.\n\nEven the humble Lapp has heard of the great upheaval, and has asked why\nthe white people should kill each other when the whole world was full\nof reindeer and when God has given us the hills and the plains so that\nforever there should be food enough for the long days of summer and the\nlonger nights of the endless winter.\n\n[Illustration]\n\nBut the ways of the Lapp are not the ways of the white man.\n\nThese simple followers of a pure and much undiluted nature follow the\neven tenor of their ways as their ancestors did, five and ten thousand\nyears ago.\n\nWe, on the other hand, have our engines and we have our railroad\ntrains and we have our factories and we cannot get rid of these iron\nservants without destroying the very basis of our civilization. We may\nhate these ungainly companions, but we need them. In time to come, we\nshall know how to be their masters. Then Plato shall give us a revised\nRepublic where all the houses are heated by steam and where all the\ndishes are washed by electricity.\n\nWe are not suffering from too much machinery, but from too little. For\nlet there be enough iron servants and more of us shall be able to sit\non the tops of mountains and stare into the blue sky and waste valuable\nhours, imagining the things that ought to be.\n\nThe Old Testament used to call such people prophets. They raised\nstrange cities of their hearts\u2019 delight, which should be based\nexclusively upon righteousness and piety. But the greatest of all their\nprophets the Jews killed to make a Roman holiday.\n\nThe Greeks knew such wise men as philosophers. They allowed them great\nfreedom and rejoiced in the mathematical precision with which their\nintellectual leaders mapped out those theoretical roads which were to\nlead mankind from chaos to an ordered state of society.\n\nThe Middle Ages insisted with narrow persistence upon the Kingdom of\nHeaven as the only possible standard for a decent Christian Utopia.\n\nThey crushed all those who dared to question the positive existence of\nsuch a future state of glory and content. They built it of stone and\nprecious metals, but neglected the spiritual fundament.\n\n[Illustration]\n\nAnd so it perished.\n\nThe sixteenth and seventeenth centuries fought many bitter wars to\ndecide the exact nature of a whitewashed Paradise, erected upon the\ncrumbling ruins of the medi\u00e6val church.\n\nThe eighteenth century saw the Promised Land lying just across the\nterrible bulwark of stupidity and superstition, which a thousand years\nof clerical selfishness had erected for its own protection and safety.\n\nThere followed a mighty battle to crush the infamy of ignorance and\nbring about an era of well-balanced reason.\n\nUnfortunately, a few enthusiasts carried the matter a trifle too far.\n\nNapoleon, realist-in-chief of all time, brought the world back to the\ncommon ground of solid facts.\n\nOur own generation drew the logical conclusion of the Napoleonic\npremises.\n\nBehold the map of Europe and see how well we have wrought.\n\nFor alas! this world needs Utopias as it needs fairy stories. It\ndoes not matter so much where we are going, as long as we are making\nconsciously for some definite goal. And a Utopia, however strange or\nfanciful, is the only possible beacon upon the uncharted seas of the\ndistant future.\n\n[Illustration]\n\nIt encourages us in our efforts. Sometimes the light is hidden by the\nclouds and for a moment we may lose our way. Then the faint light once\nmore breaks through the darkness and we press forward with new courage.\n\nAnd when life is dull and meaningless (the main curse of all existence)\nwe find consolation in the fact that a hundred years from now, our\nchildren shall reach the shore for which we were bound when we\nourselves left the bridge and were lowered to the peaceful bottom of\nthe ocean.\n\n[Illustration]\n\nAnd now the sun has gone down and a chill wind blows from Kebnekajse,\nwhere the wild geese of little Nils Holgerson live amidst the endless\nsilence of the eternal snow. Soon the top shall be hidden in the mist\nand I shall have to find my way back by the noise of the steam shovels,\nplying their elephantine trade at the foot of the first terrace.\n\nThe mountain of my fairy story once more will be the profitable\ninvestment of a Company of Iron-mongers.\n\nBut that does not matter.\n\nLewis Mumford, for whom I am writing this, will understand what I mean.\n\nAnd I shall be content.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n                                                 Hendrik Willem van Loon\n]\n\n  Kiruna, Lapland,\n  14 Sept., 1922.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER ONE\n\n  How the will-to-utopia causes men to live in two worlds, and how,\n      therefore, we re-read the Story of Utopias--the other half of\n      the Story of Mankind.\n\n\n\n\nTHE STORY OF UTOPIAS\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER ONE\n\n\n1\n\nUtopia has long been another name for the unreal and the impossible. We\nhave set utopia over against the world. As a matter of fact, it is our\nutopias that make the world tolerable to us: the cities and mansions\nthat people dream of are those in which they finally live. The more\nthat men react upon their environment and make it over after a human\npattern, the more continuously do they live in utopia; but when there\nis a breach between the world of affairs and the overworld of utopia,\nwe become conscious of the part that the will-to-utopia has played in\nour lives, and we see our utopia as a separate reality.\n\nIt is the separate reality of utopia that we are going to explore in\nthe course of this book--Utopia as a world by itself, divided into\nideal commonwealths, with all its communities clustered into proud\ncities, aiming bravely at the good life.\n\nThis discussion of ideal commonwealths gets its form and its color from\nthe time in which it is written. Plato\u2019s Republic dates from the period\nof social disintegration which followed the Peloponnesian War; and\nsome of its mordant courage is probably derived from the hopelessness\nof conditions that came under Plato\u2019s eye. It was in the midst of a\nsimilar period of disorder and violence that Sir Thomas More laid the\nfoundations for his imaginary commonwealth: Utopia was the bridge by\nwhich he sought to span the gap between the old order of the Middle\nAge, and the new interests and institutions of the Renascence.\n\nIn presenting this history and criticism of utopias we are perhaps\nbeing pulled by the same interests that led Plato and More onwards, for\nit is only after the storm that we dare to look for the rainbow. Our\nfall into a chasm of disillusion has stimulated us to discuss in a more\nthorough way the ultimate goods, the basic aims, the whole conception\nof the \u201cgood life\u201d by which, in modern times, we have been guided. In\nthe midst of the tepid and half-hearted discussions that continue to\narise out of prohibition laws and strikes and \u201cpeace\u201d conferences let\nus break in with the injunction to talk about fundamentals--consider\nUtopia!\n\n\n2\n\nMan walks with his feet on the ground and his head in the air; and the\nhistory of what has happened on earth--the history of cities and armies\nand of all the things that have had body and form--is only one-half the\nStory of Mankind.\n\nIn every age, the external scenery in which the human drama has been\nframed has remained pretty much the same. There have been fluctuations\nin climate and changes in terrain; and at times a great civilization,\nlike that of the Mayas in Central America, has arisen where now only\na thick net of jungle remains; but the hills around Jerusalem are the\nhills that David saw; and during the historic period the drowning\nof a city in the Netherlands or the rise of a shifting bank of real\nestate along the coast of New Jersey is little more than the wearing\noff of the paint or a crack in the plaster. What we call the material\nworld constantly changes, it goes without saying: mountains are stript\nof trees and become wastes, deserts are plowed with water and become\ngardens. The main outlines, however, hold their own remarkably well;\nand we could have travelled better in Roman days with a modern map than\nwith the best chart Ptolemy could have offered us.\n\nIf the world in which men live were the world as it is known to the\nphysical geographer, we should have a pretty simple time of it. We\nmight follow Whitman\u2019s advice, and live as the animals, and stop\nwhining for all time about our sins and imperfections.\n\nWhat makes human history such an uncertain and fascinating story\nis that man lives in two worlds--the world within and the world\nwithout--and the world within men\u2019s heads has undergone transformations\nwhich have disintegrated material things with the power and rapidity\nof radium. I shall take the liberty of calling this inner world our\nidolum (ido\u2032lum) or world of ideas. The word \u201cideas\u201d is not used here\nprecisely in the ordinary sense. I use it rather to stand for what the\nphilosophers would call the subjective world, what the theologians\nwould perhaps call the spiritual world; and I mean to include in it all\nthe philosophies, fantasies, rationalizations, projections, images, and\nopinions in terms of which people pattern their behavior. This world\nof ideas, in the case of scientific truths, for example, sometimes\nhas a rough correspondence with what people call the world; but it\nis important to note that it has contours of its own which are quite\nindependent of the material environment.\n\nNow the physical world is a definite, inescapable thing. Its limits\nare narrow and obvious. On occasion, if your impulse is sufficiently\nstrong, you can leave the land for the sea, or go from a warm climate\ninto a cool one; but you cannot cut yourself off from the physical\nenvironment without terminating your life. For good or ill, you must\nbreathe air, eat food, drink water; and the penalties for refusing to\nmeet these conditions are inexorable. Only a lunatic would refuse to\nrecognize this physical environment; it is the substratum of our daily\nlives.\n\nBut if the physical environment is the earth, the world of ideas\ncorresponds to the heavens. We sleep under the light of stars that\nhave long since ceased to exist, and we pattern our behavior by ideas\nwhich have no reality as soon as we cease to credit them. Whilst it\nholds together this world of ideas--this idolum--is almost as sound,\nalmost as real, almost as inescapable as the bricks of our houses or\nthe asphalt beneath our feet. The \u201cbelief\u201d that the world was flat was\nonce upon a time more important than the \u201cfact\u201d that it was round;\nand that belief kept the sailors of the medieval world from wandering\nout of sight of land as effectively as would a string of gun-boats or\nfloating mines. An idea is a solid fact, a theory is a solid fact, a\nsuperstition is a solid fact as long as people continue to regulate\ntheir actions in terms of the idea, theory, or superstition; and it is\nnone the less solid because it is conveyed as an image or a breath of\nsound.\n\n\n3\n\nThis world of ideas serves many purposes. Two of them bear heavily upon\nour investigation of utopia. On one hand the pseudo-environment or\nidolum is a substitute for the external world; it is a sort of house of\nrefuge to which we flee when our contacts with \u201chard facts\u201d become too\ncomplicated to carry through or too rough to face. On the other hand,\nit is by means of the idolum that the facts of the everyday world are\nbrought together and assorted and sifted, and a new sort of reality is\nprojected back again upon the external world. One of these functions\nis escape or compensation; it seeks an immediate release from the\ndifficulties or frustrations of our lot. The other attempts to provide\na condition for our release in the future. The utopias that correspond\nto these two functions I shall call the utopias of escape and the\nutopias of reconstruction. The first leaves the external world the way\nit is; the second seeks to change it so that one may have intercourse\nwith it on one\u2019s own terms. In one we build impossible castles in the\nair; in the other we consult a surveyor and an architect and a mason\nand proceed to build a house which meets our essential needs; as well\nas houses made of stone and mortar are capable of meeting them.\n\n\n4\n\nWhy, however, should we find it necessary to talk about utopia and the\nworld of ideas at all? Why should we not rest secure in the bosom of\nthe material environment, without flying off into a region apparently\nbeyond space and time? Well, the alternative before us is not whether\nwe shall live in the real world or dream away our time in utopia; for\nmen are so constituted that only by a deliberate discipline--such as\nthat followed by a Hindu ascetic or an American business man--can\none or the other world be abolished from consciousness. The genuine\nalternative for most of us is that between an aimless utopia of escape\nand a purposive utopia of reconstruction. One way or the other, it\nseems, in a world so full of frustrations as the \u201creal\u201d one, we must\nspend a good part of our mental lives in utopia.\n\nNevertheless this needs a qualification. It is plain that certain\ntypes of people have no need for private utopias and that certain\ncommunities seem to be without them. The savages of the Marquesas whom\nHermann Melville described seem to have had such a jolly and complete\nadjustment to their environment that, except for the raids of hostile\ntribes--and this turned out to be chiefly sport which only whetted\ntheir appetites for the feast that followed--everything needed for a\ngood life at the South Sea level could be obtained by direct attack.\nThe Marquesans had no need to dream of a happier existence; they had\nonly to grab it.\n\nAt times, during childhood perhaps, life has the same sort of\ncompleteness; and without doubt there are many mature people who have\nmanufactured out of their limitations a pretty adequate response to a\nnarrow environment; and have let it go at that. Such people feel no\nneed for utopia. As long as they can keep their contacts restricted,\nonly a deliberate raid from the outside world would create such a\nneed. They are like the sick man in the parable of the Persian poet,\nwhose only desire was that he might desire something; and there is no\nparticular reason to envy them. People who will not venture out into\nthe open sea pay the penalty of never having looked into the bright\neyes of danger; and at best they know but half of life. What such\nfolk might call the good life is simply not good enough. We cannot be\nsatisfied with a segment of existence, no matter how safely we may be\nadjusted to it, when with a little effort we can trace the complete\ncircle.\n\nBut there have been few regions, few social orders, and few people\nin which the adjustment has not been incomplete. In the face of\nperpetual difficulties and obstructions--the wind and the weather\nand the impulses of other men and customs that have long outlived\ntheir use--there are three ways, roughly, in which a man may react.\nHe may run away. He may try to hold his own. He may attack. Looking\naround at our contemporaries who have survived the war, it is fairly\nevident that most of them are in the first stage of panic and despair.\nIn an interesting article on The D\u00e9nouement of Nihilism, Mr. Edward\nTownsend Booth characterized the generation born in the late eighties\nas suffering a complete paralysis of will, or else, \u201cif any initiative\nremains to them, they emigrate to Europe or the South Sea Islands, or\ncrawl off into some quiet corner of the United States--but most of them\ncontinue where they were stricken in a state of living death.\u201d\n\nSpeaking more generally, running away does not always mean a physical\nescape, nor does an \u201cattack\u201d necessarily mean doing something practical\n\u201con the spot.\u201d Let us use Dr. John Dewey\u2019s illustration and suppose\nthat a man is denied intercourse with his friends at a distance. One\nkind of reaction is for him to \u201cimagine\u201d meeting his friends, and\ngoing through, in fantasy, a whole ritual of meeting, repartee, and\ndiscussion. The other kind of reaction, as Dr. Dewey says, is to see\nwhat conditions must be met in order to cement distant friends, and\nthen invent the telephone. The so-called extrovert, the type of man\nwho has no need for utopias, will satisfy his desire by talking to the\nnearest human being. (\u201cHe may try to hold his own.\u201d) But it is fairly\nplain that the extrovert, from the very weakness and inconstancy of his\naims, is incapable of contributing anything but \u201cgood nature\u201d to the\ngood life of the community; and in his hands both art and invention\nwould probably come to an end.\n\nNow putting aside the extrovert, we find that the two remaining types\nof reaction have expressed themselves in all the historic utopias. It\nis perhaps well that we should see them first in their normal, everyday\nsetting, before we set out to explore the ideal commonwealths of the\npast.\n\nMore or less, we have all had glimpses of the utopia of escape: it is\nraised and it collapses and it is built up again almost daily. In the\nmidst of the clanking machinery of a paper factory I have come across\na moving picture actress\u2019s portrait, stuck upon an inoperative part of\nthe machine; and it was not hard to reconstruct the private utopia of\nthe wretch who minded the levers, or to picture the world into which\nhe had fled from the roar and throb and muck of the machinery about\nhim. What man has not had this utopia from the dawn of adolescence\nonwards--the desire to possess and be possessed by a beautiful woman?\n\nPerhaps for the great majority of men and women that small, private\nUtopia is the only one for which they feel a perpetual, warm interest;\nand ultimately every other utopia must be translatable to them in some\nsuch intimate terms. Their conduct would tell us as much if their\nwords did not confess it. They leave their bleak office buildings and\ntheir grimy factories, and night after night they pour into the cinema\ntheater in order that they may live for a while in a land populated by\nbeautiful, flirtatious women and tender, lusty men. Small wonder that\nthe great and powerful religion founded by Mahomet puts that utopia\nin the very foreground of the hereafter! In a sense, this is the most\nelementary of utopias; for, on the interpretation of the analytical\npsychologist, it carries with it the deep longing to return to and\nremain at rest in the mother\u2019s womb--the one perfect environment which\nall the machinery and legislation of an eager world has never been able\nto reproduce.\n\nIn its most elemental state, this utopia of escape calls for a complete\nbreach with the butcher, the baker, the grocer, and the real, limited,\nimperfect people that flutter around us. In order to make it more\nperfect, we eliminate the butcher and baker and transport ourselves\nto a self-sufficient island in the South Seas. For the most part, of\ncourse, this is an idle dream, and if we do not grow out of it, we must\nat any rate thrust other conditions into it; but for a good many of us,\nidleness without a dream is the only alternative. Out of such fantasies\nof bliss and perfection, which do not endure in real life even when\nthey occasionally bloom into existence, our art and literature have\nvery largely grown. It is hard to conceive of a social order so\ncomplete and satisfactory that it would rob us of the necessity of\nhaving recourse, from time to time, to an imaginary world in which our\nsufferings could be purged or our delights heightened. Even in the\ngreat idyll painted by William Morris, women are fickle and lovers\nare disappointed; and when the \u201creal\u201d world becomes a little too hard\nand too sullen to face, we must take refuge, if we are to recover our\nbalance, into another world which responds more perfectly to our deeper\ninterests and desires--the world of literature.\n\nOnce we have weathered the storm, it is dangerous to remain in the\nutopia of escape; for it is an enchanted island, and to remain there\nis to lose one\u2019s capacity for dealing with things as they are. The\ngirl who has felt Prince Charming\u2019s caresses too long will be repulsed\nby the clumsy embraces of the young man who takes her to the theater\nand wonders how the deuce he is going to pay the rent if they spend\nmore than a week on their honeymoon. Moreover, life is too easy in the\nutopia of escape, and too blankly perfect--there is nothing to sharpen\nyour teeth upon. It is not for this that men have gone into the jungle\nto hunt beasts and have cajoled the grasses and roots to be prolific,\nand have defied, in little open boats, the terror of the wind and sea.\nOur daily diet must have more roughage in it than these daydreams will\ngive us if we are not to become debilitated.\n\nIn the course of our journey into utopia we shall remain a little\nwhile in these utopias of escape; but we shall not bide there long.\nThere are plenty of them, and they dot the waters of our imaginary\nworld as the islands that Ulysses visited dotted the \u00c6gean Sea. These\nutopias however belong to the department of pure literature, and in\nthat department they occupy but a minor place. We could dispense with\nthe whole lot of them, bag and baggage, in exchange for another Anna\nKarenin or The Brothers Karamazov.\n\n\n5\n\nThe second kind of utopia which we shall encounter is the utopia of\nreconstruction.\n\nThe first species represents, the analytical psychologist would tell\nus, a very primitive kind of thinking, in which we follow the direction\nof our desires without taking into account any of the limiting\nconditions which we should have to confront if we came back to earth\nand tried to realize our wishes in practical affairs. It is a vague and\nmessy and logically inconsequent series of images which color up and\nfade, which excite us and leave us cold, and which--for the sake of the\nrespect our neighbors have for our ability to add a ledger or plane a\npiece of wood--we had better confine to the strange box of records we\ncall our brain.\n\nThe second type of utopia may likewise be colored by primitive desires\nand wishes; but these desires and wishes have come to reckon with the\nworld in which they seek realization. The utopia of reconstruction is\nwhat its name implies: a vision of a reconstituted environment which\nis better adapted to the nature and aims of the human beings who dwell\nwithin it than the actual one; and not merely better adapted to their\nactual nature, but better fitted to their possible developments. If the\nfirst utopia leads backward into the utopian\u2019s ego, the second leads\noutward--outward into the world.\n\nBy a reconstructed environment I do not mean merely a physical thing.\nI mean, in addition, a new set of habits, a fresh scale of values, a\ndifferent net of relationships and institutions, and possibly--for\nalmost all utopias emphasize the factor of breeding--an alteration of\nthe physical and mental characteristics of the people chosen, through\neducation, biological selection, and so forth. The reconstructed\nenvironment which all the genuine utopians seek to contrive is a\nreconstruction of both the physical world and the idolum. It is in this\nthat the utopian distinguishes himself from the practical inventor and\nthe industrialist. Every attempt that has been made to domesticate\nanimals, cultivate plants, dredge rivers, dig ditches, and in modern\ntimes, apply the energy of the sun to mechanical instruments, has\nbeen an effort to reconstruct the environment; and in many cases the\nhuman advantage has been plain. It is not for the utopian to despise\nPrometheus who brought the fire or Franklin who captured the lightning.\nAs Anatole France says: \u201cWithout the Utopians of other times, men would\nstill live in caves, miserable and naked. It was Utopians who traced\nthe lines of the first city.... Out of generous dreams come beneficial\nrealities. Utopia is the principle of all progress, and the essay into\na better future.\u201d\n\nOur physical reconstructions however have been limited; they have\ntouched chiefly the surfaces of things. The result is that people\nlive in a modern physical environment and carry in their minds an odd\nassortment of spiritual relics from almost every other age, from that\nof the primitive, taboo-ridden savage, to the energetic Victorian\ndisciples of Gradgrind and Bounderby. As Mr. Hendrik van Loon pithily\nsays: \u201cA human being with the mind of a sixteenth century tradesman\ndriving a 1921 Rolls-Royce is still a human being with the mind of\na sixteenth century tradesman.\u201d The problem is fundamentally a human\nproblem. The more completely man is in control of physical nature, the\nmore urgently we must ask ourselves what under the heavens is to move\nand guide and keep in hand the controller. This problem of an ideal,\na goal, an end--even if the aim persist in shifting as much as the\nmagnetic north pole--is a fundamental one to the utopian.\n\nExcept in the writings of the utopians, and this is an important point\nto notice in our travels through utopia, the reconstruction of the\nmaterial environment and the reconstitution of the mental framework\nof the creatures who inhabit it, have been kept in two different\ncompartments. One compartment is supposed to belong to the practical\nman; the other to the idealist. The first was something whose aims\ncould be realized in the Here and Now; the other was postponed very\nlargely to the sweet by-and-bye. Neither the practical man nor the\nidealist has been willing to admit that he has been dealing with a\nsingle problem; that each has been treating the faces of a single thing\nas if they were separate.\n\nHere is where the utopia of reconstruction wins hands down. It not\nmerely pictures a whole world, but it faces every part of it at\nthe same time. We shall not examine the classic utopias without\nbecoming conscious of their weaknesses, their sometimes disturbing\nidiosyncrasies. It is important at present that we should realize\ntheir virtues; and should start on our journey without the feeling of\ndisparagement which the word utopian usually calls up in minds that\nhave been seduced by Macaulay\u2019s sneer that he would rather have an acre\nin Middlesex than a principality in utopia.\n\n\n6\n\nFinally, be convinced about the reality of utopia. All that has\nhappened in what we call human history--unless it has left a building\nor a book or some other record of itself--is just as remote and in\na sense just as mythical as the mysterious island which Raphael\nHythloday, scholar and sailor, described to Sir Thomas More. A good\npart of human history is even more insubstantial: the Icarians who\nlived only in the mind of \u00c9tienne Cabet, or the Freelanders who\ndwelt within the imagination of a dry little Austrian economist,\nhave had more influence upon the lives of our contemporaries than\nthe Etruscan people who once dwelt in Italy, although the Etruscans\nbelong to what we call the real world, and the Freelanders and Icarians\ninhabited--Nowhere.\n\nNowhere may be an imaginary country, but News from Nowhere is real\nnews. The world of ideas, beliefs, fantasies, projections, is (I must\nemphasize again) just as real whilst it is acted upon as the post\nwhich Dr. Johnson kicked in order to demonstrate that it was solid.\nThe man who wholly respects the rights of property is kept out of his\nneighbor\u2019s field perhaps even more effectively than the man who is\nmerely forbidden entrance by a no-trespass sign. In sum, we cannot\nignore our utopias. They exist in the same way that north and south\nexist; if we are not familiar with their classical statements we at\nleast know them as they spring to life each day in our own minds. We\ncan never reach the points of the compass; and so no doubt we shall\nnever live in utopia; but without the magnetic needle we should not\nbe able to travel intelligently at all. It is absurd to dispose of\nutopia by saying that it exists only on paper. The answer to this is:\nprecisely the same thing may be said of the architect\u2019s plans for a\nhouse, and houses are none the worse for it.\n\nWe must lose our sense of remoteness and severity in setting out on\nthis exploration of ideal commonwealths, as some of the fine minds of\nthe past have pictured them. Our ideals are not something that we can\nset apart from the main facts of our existence, as our grandmothers\nsometimes set the cold, bleak, and usually moldy parlor apart from the\nliving rooms of the house: on the contrary, the things we dream of tend\nconsciously or unconsciously to work themselves out in the pattern\nof our daily lives. Our utopias are just as human and warm and jolly\nas the world out of which they are born. Looking out from the top of\na high tenement, over the housetops of Manhattan, I can see a pale\ntower with its golden pinnacle gleaming through the soft morning haze;\nand for a moment all the harsh and ugly lines in the landscape have\ndisappeared. So in looking at our utopias. We need not abandon the real\nworld in order to enter these realizable worlds; for it is out of the\nfirst that the second are always coming.\n\nFinally, an anticipation and a warning. In our journey through the\nutopias of the past we shall not rest content when we have traversed\nthe whole territory between Plato and the latest modern writer. If\nthe story of utopia throws any light upon the story of mankind it is\nthis: our utopias have been pitifully weak and inadequate; and if\nthey have not exercised enough practical influence upon the course of\naffairs, it is because, as Viola Paget says in Gospels of Anarchy,\nthey were simply not good enough. We travel through utopia only in\norder to get beyond utopia: if we leave the domains of history when\nwe enter the gates of Plato\u2019s Republic, we do so in order to re-enter\nmore effectively the dusty midday traffic of the contemporary world. So\nour study of the classic utopias will be followed by an examination of\ncertain social myths and partial utopias that have played an important\npart in the affairs of the Western World during the last few centuries.\nIn the end, I promise, I shall make no attempt to present another\nutopia; it will be enough to survey the foundations upon which others\nmay build.\n\nIn the meanwhile, our ship is about to set sail; and we shall not heave\nanchor again until we reach the coasts of Utopia.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER TWO\n\n  How the Greeks lived in a New World, and utopia seemed just round\n      the corner. How Plato, in the Republic, is chiefly concerned\n      with what will hold the ideal city together.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER TWO\n\n\n1\n\nBefore the great empires of Rome and Macedonia began to spread their\ncamps through the length and breadth of the Mediterranean world,\nthere was a time when the vision of an ideal city seems to have been\nuppermost in the minds of a good many men. Just as the wide expanse of\nunsettled territory in America caused the people of eighteenth century\nEurope to think of building a civilization in which the errors and\nvices and superstitions of the old world might be left behind, so the\nsparsely settled coasts of Italy, Sicily, and the \u00c6gean Islands, and\nthe shores of the Black Sea, must have given men the hope of being able\nto turn over a fresh page.\n\nThose years between six hundred and three hundred B.C. were\ncity-building years for the parent cities of Greece. The city of\nMiletus is supposed to have begotten some three hundred cities,\nand many of its fellows were possibly not less fruitful. Since new\ncities could be founded there was plenty of chance for variation and\nexperiment; and those who dreamed of a more, generous social order\ncould set their hands and wits to making a better start \u201cfrom the\nbottom up.\u201d\n\nOf all the plans and reconstruction programs that must have been\nput forward during these centuries, only a scant handful remains.\nAristotle tells us about an ideal state designed by one, Phaleas, who\nbelieved like Mr. Bernard Shaw in a complete equality of property; and\nfrom Aristotle, too, we learn of another utopia which was described\nby the great architect, city planner, and sociologist--Hippodamus.\nHippodamus was one of the first city planners known to history, and\nhe achieved fame in the ancient world by designing cities on the\nsomewhat monotonous checkerboard design we know so well in America. He\nrealized, apparently, that a city was something more than a collection\nof houses, streets, markets, and temples; and so, whilst he was putting\nthe physical town to rights, he concerned himself with the more basic\nproblem of the social order. If it adds at all to our sense of reality\nin going through utopia, let me confess that it is ultimately through\nthe inspiration and example of another Hippodamus--Patrick Geddes, the\ntown planner for Jerusalem and many other cities--that this book about\nutopias came to be written. In many ways the distance between Geddes\nand Aristotle or Hippodamus seems much less than that which separates\nGeddes and Herbert Spencer.\n\nWhen we look at the utopias that Phaleas and Hippodamus and Aristotle\nhave left us, and compare them with the Republic of Plato, the\ndifferences between them melt into insignificance and their likenesses\nare apparent. It is for this reason that I shall confine our\nexamination of the Greek utopia to that which Plato set forth in the\nRepublic, and qualified and broadened in The Laws, The Statesman, and\nCritias.\n\n\n2\n\nPlato\u2019s Republic dates roughly from the time of that long and\ndisastrous war which Athens fought with Sparta. In the course of\nsuch a war, amid the bombast that patriotic citizens give way to, the\npeople who keep their senses are bound to get pretty well acquainted\nwith their enemy. If you will take the trouble to examine Plutarch\u2019s\naccount of the Laws of Lycurgus and Mr. Alfred Zimmern\u2019s magnificent\ndescription of the Greek Commonwealth you will see how Sparta and\nAthens form the web and woof of the Republic--only it is an ideal\nSparta and an ideal Athens that Plato has in mind.\n\nIt is well to remember that Plato wrote in the midst of defeat; a\ngreat part of his region, Attica, had been devastated and burned; and\nhe must have felt that makeshift and reform were quite futile when\na Peloponnesian war could make the bottom drop out of his world. To\nPlato an ill-designed ship of state required more than the science of\nnavigation to pull it through stormy waters: if it was in danger of\nperpetually foundering, it seemed high time to go back to the shipyards\nand inquire into the principles upon which it had been put together.\nIn such a mood, I suggest parenthetically, we today will turn again to\nfundamentals.\n\n\n3\n\nIn describing his ideal community Plato, like a trained workman, begins\nwith his physical foundations. So far from putting his utopia in a\nmythical island of Avilion, where falls not hail nor rain nor any snow,\nit is plain that Plato was referring repeatedly to the soil in which\nAthens was planted, and to the economic life which grew out of that\nsoil. Since he was speaking to his own countrymen, he could let a good\nmany things pass for common knowledge which we, as strangers, must\nlook into more carefully in order to have a firmer sense of his utopian\nrealities. Let it be understood that in discussing the physical side of\nthe Republic, I am drawing from Aristotle as well as Plato, and from\nsuch modern Greek scholars as Messrs. Zimmern, Myres, and Murray.\n\nNowadays when we talk about a state we think of an expanse of\nterritory, to begin with, so broad that we should in most cases be\nunable to see all its boundaries if we rose five miles above the\nground on a clear day. Even if the country is a little one, like the\nNetherlands or Belgium, it is likely to have possessions that are\nthousands of miles away; and we think of these distant possessions and\nof the homeland as part and parcel of the state. There is scarcely\nany conceivable way in which a Dutchman in Rotterdam, let us say,\npossesses the Island of Java: he does not live on the island, he is\nnot acquainted with the inhabitants, he does not share their ideas\nor customs. His interest in Java, if he have an interest at all, is\nan interest in sugar, coffee, taxes, or missions. His state is not a\ncommonwealth in the sense that it is a common possession.\n\nTo the Greek of Plato\u2019s time, on the contrary, the commonwealth\nwas something he actively shared with his fellow citizens. It was\na definite parcel of land whose limits he could probably see from\nany convenient hilltop; and those who lived within those limits had\ncommon gods to worship, common theaters and gymnasia, and a multitude\nof common interests that could be satisfied only by their working\ntogether, playing together, thinking together. Plato could probably not\nhave conceived of a community with civilized pretensions in which the\npopulation was distributed at the rate of ten per square mile; and if\nhe visited such a territory he would surely have said that the people\nwere barbarians--men whose way of living unfitted them for the graces\nand duties of citizenship.\n\nGeographically speaking, then, the ideal commonwealth was a\ncity-region; that is, a city which was surrounded by enough land to\nsupply the greater part of the food needed by the inhabitants; and\nplaced convenient to the sea.\n\nLet us stand on a high hill and take a look at this city-region; the\nsort of view that Plato himself might have obtained on some clear\nspring morning when he climbed to the top of the Acropolis and looked\ndown on the sleeping city, with the green fields and sear upland\npastures on one side, and the sun glinting on the distant waters of the\nsea a few miles away.\n\nIt is a mountainous region, this Greece, and within a short distance\nfrom mountain top to sea there was compressed as many different kinds\nof agricultural and industrial life as one could single out in going\ndown the Hudson valley from the Adirondack Mountains to New York\nHarbor. As the basis for his ideal city, whether Plato knew it or not,\nhe had an \u201cideal\u201d section of land in his mind--what the geographer\ncalls the \u201cvalley section.\u201d He could not have gotten the various groups\nwhich were to be combined in his city, had they been settled in the\nbeginning on a section of land like the coastal plain of New Jersey.\nIt was peculiarly in Greece that such a variety of occupations could\ncome together within a small area, beginning at the summit of the\nvalley section with the evergreen trees and the woodcutter, going down\nthe slope to the herdsman and his flock of goats at pasture, along\nthe valley bottom to the cultivator and his crops, until at length one\nreaches the river\u2019s mouth where the fisher pushes out to sea in his\nboat and the trader comes in with goods from other lands.\n\nThe great civilizations of the world have been nourished in such valley\nsections. We think of the river Nile and Alexandria; the Tiber and\nRome, the Seine and Paris; and so on. It is interesting that our first\ngreat utopia should have had an \u201cideal\u201d section of territory as its\nbase.\n\n\n4\n\nIn the economic foundations of the Republic, we look in vain for\na recognition of the labor problem. Now the labor problem is a\nfundamental difficulty in our modern life; and it seems on the surface\nthat Plato is a little highbrow and remote in the ease with which he\ngets over it. When we look more closely into the matter, however, and\nsee the way in which men got their living in the \u201cmorning lands\u201d--as\nthe Germans call them--we shall find that the reason Plato does not\noffer a solution is that he was not, indeed, confronted by a problem.\n\nGiven a valley section which has not been ruthlessly stript of trees;\ngiven the arts of agriculture and herding; given a climate without\ndangerous extremes of heat and cold; given the opportunity to found new\ncolonies when the old city-region is over-populated--and it is only by\nan exercise of ingenuity that a labor problem could be invented. A man\nmight become a slave by military capture; he did not become a slave\nby being compelled, under threat of starvation, to tend a machine.\nThe problem of getting a living was answered by nature as long as men\nwere willing to put up with nature\u2019s conditions; and the groundwork\nof Plato\u2019s utopia, accordingly, is the simple agricultural life, the\ngrowing of wheat, barley, olives, and grapes, which had been fairly\nwell mastered before he arrived on the scene. As long as the soil was\nnot washed away and devitalized, the problem was not a hard one; and\nin order to solve it, Plato had only to provide that there should be\nenough territory to grow food on, and that the inhabitants must not let\ntheir wants exceed the bounties of nature.\n\nPlato describes the foundations of his community with a few simple\nand masterly touches. Those who feel that there is something a little\ninhuman in his conception of the good life, when he is discussing the\neducation and duties of the ruling classes, may well consider the\npicture that he paints for us here.\n\nPlato\u2019s society arises out of the needs of mankind; because none of us\nis self-sufficing and all have many wants; and since there are many\nwants, many kinds of people must supply them. When all these helpers\nand partners and co-operators are gathered together in a city the body\nof inhabitants is termed a state; and so its members work and exchange\ngoods with one another for their mutual advantage--the herdsman gets\nbarley for his cheese and so on down to the complicated interchanges\nthat occur in the city. What sort of physical life will arise out of\nthis in the region that Plato describes?\n\nWell, the people will \u201cproduce corn and wine and clothes and shoes\nand build houses for themselves.... They will work in summer commonly\nstript and barefoot, but in winter substantially clothed and shod.\nThey will feed on barley and wheat, baking the wheat and kneading the\nflour, making noble puddings and loaves; these they will serve up on\na mat of reeds or clean leaves; themselves reclining the while upon\nbeds of yew or myrtle boughs. And they and their children will feast,\ndrinking of the wine which they have made, wearing garlands on their\nheads, and having the praises of the gods on their lips, living in\nsweet society, and having a care that their families do not exceed\ntheir means; for they will have an eye to poverty or war.\u201d\n\nSo Socrates, in this dialogue on the Republic, describes to his\nhearers the essential physical elements of the good life. One of his\nhearers, Glaucon, asks him to elaborate it a little, for Socrates has\nlimited himself to bare essentials. It is the same sort of objection,\nby the way, that M. Poincar\u00e9, the physicist, made to the philosophy\nof Tolstoy. Socrates answers that a good state would have the healthy\nconstitution which he has just described; but that he has no objection\nto looking at an \u201cinflamed constitution.\u201d What Socrates describes as\nan inflamed constitution is a mode of life which all the people of\nWestern Europe and America at the present day--no matter what their\nreligion, economic status, or political creed may be--believe in with\nalmost a single mind; and so, although it is the opposite of Plato\u2019s\nideal state, I go on to present it, for the light it throws on our own\ninstitutions and habits.\n\nThe unjust state comes into existence, says Plato through the mouth of\nSocrates, by the multiplication of wants and superfluities. As a result\nof increasing wants, we must enlarge our borders, for the original\nhealthy state is too small. Now the city will fill up with a multitude\nof callings which go beyond those required by any natural want; there\nwill be a host of parasites and \u201csupers\u201d; and our country, which was\nbig enough to support the original inhabitants, will want a slice of\nour neighbor\u2019s land for pasture and tillage; and they will want a slice\nof ours if, like ourselves, they exceed the limits of necessity and\ngive themselves up to the unlimited accumulation of wealth. \u201cAnd then\nwe shall go to war--that will be the next thing.\u201d\n\nThe sum of this criticism is that Plato saw clearly that an ideal\ncommunity must have a common physical standard of living; and that\nboundless wealth or unlimited desires and gratifications had nothing to\ndo with a good standard. The good was what was necessary; and what was\nnecessary was not, essentially, many goods.\n\nLike Aristotle, Plato wanted a mode of life which was neither\nimpoverished nor luxurious: those who have read a little in Greek\nhistory will see that this Athenian ideal of the good life fell rather\nsymbolically between Sparta and Corinth, between the cities which we\nassociate respectively with a hard, military life and with a soft,\nsuper-sensuous \u00e6stheticism.\n\nShould we moderate our wants or should we increase production?\nPlato had no difficulty in answering this question. He held that a\nreasonable man would moderate his wants; and that if he wished to\nlive like a good farmer or a good philosopher he would not attempt to\ncopy the expenditures of a vulgar gambler who has just made a corner\nin wheat, or a vulgar courtesan who has just made a conquest of the\nvulgar gambler who has made a corner in wheat. Wealth and poverty,\nsaid Plato, are the two causes of deterioration in the arts: both the\nworkman and his works are likely to degenerate under the influence\nof either poverty or wealth, \u201cfor one is the parent of luxury and\nindolence, and the other of meanness and viciousness, and both of\ndiscontent.\u201d\n\nNor does Plato have one standard of living for his ruling classes and\nanother for the common people. To each person he would give all the\nmaterial things necessary for sustenance; and from each he would be\nprepared to strip all that was not essential. He realized that the\npossession of goods was not a means of getting happiness, but an effort\nto make up for a spiritually depauperate life: for Plato, happiness was\nwhat one could put into life and not what one could loot out of it:\nit was the happiness of the dancer rather than the happiness of the\nglutton. Plato pictured a community living a sane, continent, athletic,\nclear-eyed life; a community that would be always, so to say, within\nbounds. There is a horror of laxity and easy living in his Republic.\nHis society was stripped for action. The fragrance that permeates his\npicture of the good life is not the heavy fragrance of rose-petals and\nincense falling upon languorous couches: it is the fragrance of the\nmorning grass, and the scent of crushed mint or marjoram beneath the\nfeet.\n\n\n5\n\nHow big is Plato\u2019s community, how are the people divided, what are\ntheir relations? Now that we have discussed the lay out of the land,\nand have inquired into the physical basis of this utopia, we are ready\nto turn our attention to the people; for it is out of the interaction\nof folk, work, and place that every community--good or bad, real or\nfancied--exists and perpetuates itself.\n\n\n6\n\nIt follows almost inevitably from what we have said of Plato\u2019s\nenvironment, that his ideal community was not to be unlimited in\npopulation. Quite the contrary. Plato said that \u201cthe city may increase\nto any size which is consistent with its unity; that is the limit.\u201d\nThe modern political scientist, who lives within a national state of\nmillions of people, and who thinks of the greatness of states largely\nin terms of their population, has scoffed without mercy at the fact\nthat Plato limited his community to an arbitrary number, 5,040, about\nthe number that can be conveniently addressed by a single orator. As\na matter of fact there is nothing ridiculous in Plato\u2019s definition:\nhe was not speaking of a horde of barbarians: he was laying down the\nfoundations for an active polity of citizens: and it is plain enough\nin all conscience that when you increase the number of people in a\ncommunity you decrease the number of things that they can share in\ncommon. Plato could not anticipate the wireless telephone and the daily\nnewspaper; still less would he have been likely to exaggerate the\ndifference which these instrumentalities have made in the matters that\nmost intimately concern us; and when he set bounds to the population\nhis city would contain, he was anticipating by more than two thousand\nyears the verdict of modern town planners like Mr. Raymond Unwin.\n\nPeople are not the members of a community because they live under\nthe same system of political government or dwell in the same country.\nThey become genuine citizens to the extent that they share certain\ninstitutions and ways of life with similarly educated people. Plato\nwas primarily concerned with providing conditions which would make\na community hold together without being acted upon by any external\nforce--as the national state is acted upon today by war or the threat\nof war. This concern seems to underlie every line of the Republic. In\nattacking his problem, the business of supplying the physical wants of\nthe city seemed relatively unimportant; and even though Greece in the\ntime of Plato traded widely with the whole Mediterranean region, Plato\ndid not mistake commercial unity for civic unity. Hence in his scheme\nof things the work of the farmer and the merchant and the trader was\nsubordinate. The important thing to consider was the general conditions\nunder which all the individuals and groups in a community might live\ntogether harmoniously. This is a long cry from the utopias of the\nnineteenth century, which we will examine later; and that is why it is\nimportant to understand Plato\u2019s point of view and follow his argument.\n\n\n7\n\nTo Plato, a good community was like a healthy body; a harmonious\nexercise of every function was the condition of its strength and\nvitality. Necessarily then a good community could not be simply a\ncollection of individuals, each one of whom insists upon some private\nand particular happiness without respect to the welfare and interests\nof his fellows. Plato believed that goodness and happiness--for he\nwould scarcely admit that there was any distinct line of cleavage\nbetween these qualities--consisted in living according to nature;\nthat is to say, in knowing one\u2019s self, in finding one\u2019s bent, and in\nfulfilling the particular work which one had the capacity to perform.\nThe secret of a good community, therefore, if we may translate Plato\u2019s\nlanguage into modern political slang, is the principle of function.\n\nEvery kind of work, says Plato, requires a particular kind of aptitude\nand training. If we wish to have good shoes, our shoes must be made\nby a shoemaker and not by a weaver; and in like manner, every man has\nsome particular calling to which his genius leads him, and he finds a\nhappiness for himself and usefulness to his fellows when he is employed\nin that calling. The good life must result when each man has a function\nto perform, and when all the necessary functions are adjusted happily\nto each other. The state is like the physical body. \u201cHealth is the\ncreation of a natural order and government in the parts of the body,\nand the creation of disease is the creation of a state of things in\nwhich they are at variance with the natural order.\u201d The supreme virtue\nin the commonwealth is justice; namely, the due apportionment of work\nor function under the rule of \u201ca place for every man and every man in\nhis place.\u201d\n\nHas any such society ever come into existence? Do not too hastily\nanswer No. The ideal in Plato\u2019s mind is carried out point for point in\nthe organization of a modern symphony orchestra.\n\nNow Plato was not unaware that there were other formulas for happiness.\nHe expressly points out however that in founding the Republic he\ndoes not wish to make any single person or group happier beyond the\nrest; he desires rather that the whole city should be in the happiest\ncondition. It would be easy enough \u201cto array the husbandmen in rich and\ncostly robes and to enjoin them to cultivate the ground only with a\nview to their pleasure,\u201d and so Plato might have conferred a spurious\nkind of felicity upon every individual. If this happened, however,\nthere would be a brief period of ease and revelry before the whole\nworks went to pot. In this Plato is a thoroughgoing realist: he is not\nlooking for a short avenue of escape; he is ready to face the road\nwith all its ups and downs, with its steep climbs as well as its wide\nvistas; and he does not think any the worse of life because he finds\nthat its chief enjoyments rest in activity, and not, as the epicureans\nof all sorts have always believed, in a release from activity.\n\n\n8\n\nPlato arrives at his apportionment of functions by a method which is\nold-fashioned, and which anybody versed in modern psychology would\nregard as a \u201crationalization.\u201d Plato is trying to give a firm basis\nto the division of classes which he favored; and so he compares the\ncommunity to a human being, possessed of the virtues of wisdom, valour,\ntemperance, and justice. Each of these virtues Plato relates to a\nparticular class of people.\n\nWisdom is appropriate to the rulers of the city. Thus arises the class\nof guardians.\n\nValour is the characteristic of the defenders of the city and hence a\nmilitary class, called auxiliaries, appears.\n\nTemperance, or agreement, is the virtue which relates to all classes.\n\nFinally, there comes justice. \u201cJustice is the ultimate cause and\ncondition of all of them.... If a question should arise as to which\nof these four qualities contributed most by their presence to the\nexcellence of the State whether the agreement of rulers and subjects\nor the preservation in the soldiers of the opinion which the law\nordains about the true nature of dangers, or wisdom and watchfulness\nin the rulers would claim the palm, or whether this which I am about\nto mention,\u201d namely, \u201ceveryone doing his own work and not being a\nbusybody--the question would not be easily determined.\u201d Nevertheless,\nit is plain that justice is the keystone of the Platonic utopia.\n\nWe must not misunderstand Plato\u2019s division of classes. Aristotle\ncriticizes Plato in terms of a more simple system of democracy; but\nPlato did not mean to institute a fixed order; within his Republic\nthe Napoleonic motto--_la carri\u00e8re est ouverte aux talents_--was the\nguiding principle. What lay beneath Plato\u2019s argument was a belief which\npresent-day studies in psychology seem likely to confirm; a belief that\nchildren come into the world with a bent already well marked in their\nphysical and mental constitutions. Plato advocated, it is true, an\naristocracy or government by the best people; but he did not believe in\nfake aristocracies that are perpetuated through hereditary wealth and\nposition. Having determined that his city was to contain three classes,\nrulers, warriors, and workers, his capital difficulty still remained to\nbe faced; how was each individual to find his way to the right class,\nand under what conditions would he best fulfill his functions there?\n\nThe answers to these questions bring us to the boldest and most\noriginal sections of the Republic: the part that has provoked the\ngreatest amount of antagonism and aversion, because of its drastic\ndeparture from the rut of many established institutions--in particular,\nindividual marriages and individual property.\n\nIn order to perpetuate his ideal constitution Plato relies upon three\nmethods: breeding, education, and a discipline for the daily life. Let\nus consider the effect of these methods upon each of the classes.\n\nWe may dismiss the class of artisans and husbandmen very briefly. It is\nnot quite clear whether Plato meant his system of marriage to extend to\nthe members of this class. As for education, it is clear that he saw\nnothing to find fault with in the system of apprenticeship whereby the\nsmith or the potter or the farmer trained others to follow his calling;\nand so he had no reason for departing from methods which had proved, on\nthe whole, very satisfactory. How satisfactory that system was, indeed,\nwe have only to look at an Athenian ruin or vase or chalice to find\nout. Any improvements that might come about in these occupations would\nresult from the Platonic rule of justice; and Plato followed his own\ninjunction strictly enough to keep away from other people\u2019s business.\n\nThis of course seems an odd and hasty manner of treatment, as I\nsaid before, to those of us who live in a world where the affairs\nof industry and the tendencies of the labor movement are forever\non the carpet. But Plato justifies his treatment by saying that\n\u201cwhen shoemakers become bad, and are degenerate, and profess to be\nshoemakers when they are not, no great mischief happens to the state;\nbut when the guardians of the law and the State are not so in reality,\nbut only in appearance, you see how they entirely destroy the whole\nconstitution, if they alone shall have the privilege of an affluent\nand happy life.\u201d Hence Plato concentrates his attack upon the point\nof greatest danger: while the shoemaker, as a rule, knows how to mind\nhis own business, the statesman is for the most part unaware of the\nessential business which he has to mind; and tends to be negligent even\nwhen he has some dim notion as to what it may be--being all too ready\nto sacrifice it to golf or the favors of a beautiful woman. As we saw\nin Plato\u2019s original description of the State, the common folk would\ndoubtless have a good many of the joys and delights traditional in the\nGreek cities; and doubtless, although Plato says nothing one way or the\nother, they would be permitted to own such property as might be needed\nfor the conduct of their business or the enjoyment of their homes.\nThe very fact that no definite rule was prescribed for them, makes us\nsuspect that Plato was willing to let these things go on in the usual\nway.\n\nThe next class is known as the warriors, or auxiliaries. They are\ndifferent in character from the guardians who rule the state; but\nfrequently Plato refers to the guardians as a single class, including\nthe auxiliaries; and it seems that they figured in his mind as the\ntemporal arm of that class. At any rate, the auxiliaries as they are\npainted in the Critias, which was the dialogue in which Plato attempted\nto show his Republic in action, dwelt by themselves within a single\nenclosure; and had common meals and common temples of their own; and\nso we may surmise that their way of life was to be similar to that\nof the higher guardians, but that it was not capable of being pushed\nto the same pitch of development on the intellectual side. These\nwarriors of Plato are, after all, not so very much unlike the regular\nor standing army in a modern State: they have a life of their own\nwithin the barracks, they are trained and drilled to great endurance,\nand they are taught to obey without question the Government. When you\nexamine the naked business of the warriors and artisans, you discover\nthat Plato is not, for all the difference in scale, so very far away\nfrom modern realities. Apart from the fact that women were permitted\nan equal place with men in the life of the camp and the gymnasium and\nthe academy, the real difference comes in the matter of breeding and\nselection. At last we approach the Governors, or the Guardians.\n\nHow does the Guardian achieve his position and power? Plato is a little\nchary of answering this question; he hints that it can only happen at\nthe beginning if a person with the brains of a philosopher happen to\nbe born with the authority of a king. Let us pass this by. How are the\nGuardians born and bred? This is the manner.\n\nFor the well-being of the state the Guardians have the power to\nadminister medicinal lies. One of these is to be told to the youth when\ntheir education has reached a point at which it becomes possible for\nthe Guardians to determine their natural talents and aptitudes.\n\n\u201cCitizens, we shall say to them in our tale, you are brothers, yet God\nhas framed you differently. Some of you have the power to command, and\nthese he has composed of gold, wherefore also they have the greatest\nhonor; others of silver, to be auxiliaries; others again who are to be\nhusbandmen and craftsmen he has made of brass and iron; and the species\nwill generally be preserved in the children. But as you are of the same\noriginal family, a golden parent will sometimes have a silver son, or\na silver parent a golden son. And God proclaims to the rulers, as a\nfirst principle, that before all things they should watch over their\noffspring, and see what elements mingle in their nature, for if the\nson of a golden or silver parent has an admixture of brass and iron,\nthen nature orders a transposition of the ranks; and the eye of the\nruler must not be pitiful towards his child because he has to descend\nin the scale and will become a husbandman or artisan, just as there may\nbe others sprung from the artisan class who are raised to honor, and\nbecome guardians and auxiliaries.\u201d\n\nAs the safeguard of this principle of natural selection of functions,\nPlato proposed a system of common marriage. \u201cThe wives of these\nguardians are to be common, and their children are also common, and no\nparent is to know his own child, nor any child his parent. Starting\nfrom the day of the hymeneal, the bridegroom who was then married\nwill call all the male children who are born ten and seven months\nafterwards his sons, and the female children his daughters, and they\nwill call him father.... And those who were born at the same time they\nwill term brothers and sisters, and they are not to intermarry.\u201d One\nof the features of this system is that the best stocks--the strongest\nand wisest and most beautiful--are to be encouraged to reproduce\nthemselves. But this is not worked out in detail. There is to be\ncomplete freedom of sexual selection among the guardians; and those who\nare most distinguished in their services are to have access to a great\nnumber of women; but beyond encouraging the guardians to be prolific,\nPlato did not apparently consider the possibilities of cross-breeding\nbetween the various classes.\n\nOn the whole, one may say that Plato puts it up to the Guardians to\nperpetuate themselves properly, and indicates that this is to be one\nof their main concerns. His good breeding was biological breeding, not\nsocial breeding. He recognized as some of our modern eugenists have\nfailed to--that good parents might throw poor stock, on occasion, and\nthat abject parents might have remarkably good progeny. Even if the\nGuardians are to be encouraged to have good children, Plato provides\nthat the children themselves must prove their goodness before they\nare in turn recognized as Guardians. As for the children of the baser\nsort--well, they were to be rigorously limited to the needs and\nresources of the community. Plato lived at a time when a great many\nchildren were born only to be murdered through \u201cexposure\u201d as it was\ncalled; and he had no qualms, apparently, about letting the Guardians\nsend the children with a bad heredity into the discard. If his\npopulation could not grow properly in the sunlight without getting rid\nof the weeds, he was prepared to get rid of the weeds. People who were\nphysically or spiritually too deformed to take part in the good life\nwere to be eliminated. Plato, like a robust Athenian, was for killing\nor curing a disease; and he gave short shrift to the constitutional\ninvalids.\n\n\n9\n\nBut to breed Guardians is only one-half the problem. The other half\ncomes under the heads of education and discipline; and when Plato\ndiscusses these things, he is not speaking, as a modern college\npresident perhaps would, of book-learning alone; he is referring to\nall the activities that mold a person\u2019s life. He follows the older\nphilosopher, Pythagoras, and anticipates the great organizer, Benedict,\nby laying down a rule of life for his guardians. He did not imagine\nthat disinterested activities, spacious thoughts, and clear vision\nwould arise in people who normally put their personal comfort and\n\u201chappiness\u201d above the necessities of their office.\n\nLet us recognize the depth of Plato\u2019s insight. It is plain that he\ndid not despise what a modern psychologist would call \u201cthe normal\nbiological career.\u201d For the great majority of people happiness\nconsisted in learning a definite trade or profession, in doing one\u2019s\ndaily work, in mating, and when the tension of the day relaxed, in\ngetting enjoyment and recreation in the simple sensualities of eating,\ndrinking, singing, love-making, and what not. This normal biological\ncareer is associated with a home, and with the limited horizons of a\nhome; and a host of small loyalties and jealousies and interests are\nwoven into the very texture of that life.\n\nEach home, each small circle of relatives and friends, tends to be a\nminiature utopia; there is a limited community of goods, a tendency to\nadjust one\u2019s actions to the welfare of the little whole, and a habit of\nbanding together against the world at large. But the good, contrary\nto the proverb, is frequently the enemy of the better; and the little\nutopia of the family is the enemy--indeed the principal enemy--of the\nbeloved community. This fact is notorious. The picture of a trade union\nleader which Mr. John Galsworthy portrays in Strife, whose power to\nact firmly in behalf of his group is sapped by the demands made by\nfamily ties, could be matched in a thousand places. In order to have\nthe freedom to act for the sake of a great institution, a person must\nbe stript of a whole host of restraining ties and sentimentalities.\nJesus commanded his followers to leave their families and abandon their\nworldly goods; and Plato, in order to preserve his ideal commonwealth,\nlaid down a similar rule. For those who as guardians were to apply\nthe science of government to public affairs, a private life, private\nduties, private interests, were all to be left behind.\n\nAs to the education of the Guardians, I have scarcely the space to\ntreat the more formal part of it in detail; for among other things, as\nJowett points out, the Republic is a treatise on education; and Plato\npresents a fairly elaborate plan. The two branches of Greek education,\nmusic and gymnastic, applied in the student\u2019s early years to the\nculture of the body and the culture of the mind; and both branches were\nto be followed in common by both sexes. Instruction during the early\npart of a child\u2019s life was to be communicated through play activities,\nas it is today in the City and Country School in New York; and only\nwith manhood did the student approach his subjects in a more formal\nand systematic manner. In the course of this education the students\nwere to be tested again and again with respect to their mental keenness\nand tenacity and fortitude; and only those who came through the fire\npurified and strengthened were to be admitted to the class of guardians.\n\nThe daily life of the Guardians is a rigorous, military regime. They\nlive in common barracks, and in order to avoid paying attention to\nprivate affairs, instead of minding the good of the whole community,\nno one is allowed to \u201cpossess any substance privately, unless there\nbe a great necessity for it\u201d; next, Plato continues, none shall have\nany dwelling or storehouse into which whoever inclines may not enter;\nand as for necessaries, they shall be only such as brave and temperate\nwarriors may require, and as they are supported by other citizens, they\nshall receive such a reward of their guardianship as to have neither an\noverplus nor a deficit at the end of the year. They shall have public\nmeals, as in encampments, and live in common. They are to refrain from\nusing gold and silver, as all the gold and silver they require is in\ntheir souls.\n\nAll these regulations, of course, are for the purpose of keeping the\nGuardians disinterested. Plato believed that the majority of people\ndid not know how to mind public business; for it seemed to him that\nthe ordering of a community\u2019s life required a measure of science\nwhich the common man could not possibly possess. Indeed, in a city\nof a thousand men he did not see the possibility of getting as many\nas fifty men who would be sufficiently well versed in what we should\ntoday call sociology to deal intelligently with public affairs--for\nthere would scarcely be that many first-rate draughts players. At the\nsame time, if the government is to be entrusted to a few, the few\nmust be genuinely disinterested. If they possessed lands and houses\nand money in a private way they would become landlords and farmers\ninstead of Guardians; they would be hateful masters instead of allies\nof the citizens; and so \u201chating and being hated, plotting and being\nplotted against, more afraid of the enemies within than the enemies\nwithout, they would drag themselves and the rest of the state to speedy\ndestruction.\u201d\n\nIt remains to take a glance at the manhood and later life of the\nGuardians.\n\nAs young men, the Guardians belong to the auxiliaries; and since\nthey are not permitted to perform any of the manual arts--for skill\nin any of the trades tended to make a man warped and one-sided, like\nthe symbolic blacksmith god, Heph\u00e6stos--their physical edge was\nmaintained by the unceasing discipline of the gymnasium and \u201cmilitary\u201d\nexpeditions. I put military in quotation marks, because a greater part\nof the warriors\u2019 time is spent not in war but in preparation for war;\nand it is plain that Plato looked upon war as an unnecessary evil, for\nit arose out of the unjust state; and therefore he must have resorted\nto warlike discipline for the educational values he found in it. From\nthirty-five to fifty the potential Guardians undertake practical\nactivities, commanding armies and gaining experience of life. After\nfifty, those who are qualified devote themselves to philosophy: out of\ntheir experience and their inner reflection they figure the essential\nnature of the good community; and on occasion each guardian abandons\ndivine philosophy for a while, takes his turn at the helm of the state,\nand trains his successors.\n\n\n10\n\nWhat is the business of the Guardian? How does Plato\u2019s ideal statesman\ndiffer from Julius C\u00e6sar or Mr. Theodore Roosevelt?\n\nThe business of the Guardian is to manufacture liberty. The petty laws,\nregulations, and reforms with which the ordinary statesman occupies\nhimself had nothing to do, in Plato\u2019s mind, with the essential business\nof the ruler. So Plato expressly foregoes making laws to regulate\nmarketing, the affairs of industry, graft, bribery, theft, and so\nforth; and he leaves these matters with the curt indication that men\ncan be left to themselves to devise on a voluntary basis the rules\nof the game for the different occupations; and that it is not the\nbusiness of the Guardian to meddle in such matters. In a well-founded\nstate, a great number of minor maladjustments would simply fall\nout of existence; whilst in any other state, all the tinkering and\nreforming in the world is quite powerless to amend its organic defects.\nThose make-believe statesmen who try their hand at legislation and\n\u201care always fancying that by reforming they will make an end of the\ndishonesties and rascalities of mankind,\u201d do not know that in reality\nthey are trying to cut away the heads of a hydra.\n\nThe real concern of the Guardians is with the essential constitution of\nthe state. The means that they employ to perfect this constitution are\nbreeding, vocational selection, and education. \u201cIf once a republic is\nset a-going, it proceeds happily, increasing as a circle. And whilst\ngood education and nurture are preserved, they produce good geniuses;\nand good geniuses, partaking of such education, produce still better\nthan the former, as well in other respects, as with reference to\npropagation, as in the case of other animals.\u201d All the activities of\nthe Republic are to be patterned after the utopia which the Guardians\nsee with their inward eye. So gradually the community becomes a living\nunity; and it exhibits the health of that which is organically sound.\n\n\n11\n\nWhat do we miss when we look around this utopia of Plato\u2019s? Contacts\nwith the outside world? We may take them for granted. Downy beds,\nCorinthian girls, luxurious furniture? We can well spare them. The\nopportunity for a satisfactory intellectual and physical life? No: both\nof these are here.\n\nWhat Plato has left out are the poets, dramatists, and painters.\nLiterature and music, in order to contribute to the noble education\nof the Guardians, are both severely restricted in theme and in\ntreatment. Plato has his limitations; and here is the principal one:\nPlato distrusted the emotional life, and whilst he was prepared to do\nfull homage to man\u2019s obvious sensualities, he feared the emotions as\na tight-rope walker fears the wind; for they threatened his balance.\nIn one significant passage he classifies \u201clove\u201d with disease and\ndrunkenness, as a vulgar misfortune; and though he was ready to permit\nthe active expression of the emotions, as in the dance or the sexual\nact, he treated the mere play upon the feelings, without active\nparticipation, as a form of intemperance. Hence a great deal of music\nand dramatic mimicry was taboo. Foreign as this doctrine sounds to\nthe modern reader, there is perhaps more than a grain of sense in it:\nWilliam James used to teach that no one should passively experience an\nemotion at a concert or a play without trying to express that emotion\nactively as soon as he could make the opportunity. At any rate, let us\nleave this problem which Plato opens up with a free mind; and note here\nin passing that in the utopia of William Morris novels drop naturally\nout of existence because life is too active an ecstasy to be fed with\nthe pathetic, the maudlin, and the diseased.\n\n\n12\n\nAs we leave this little city of Plato\u2019s, nestling in the hills, and\nas the thin, didactic voice of Plato, who has been perpetually at our\nelbows, dies away from our ears--what impression do we finally carry\naway?\n\nIn the fields, men are perhaps plowing the land for the autumn sowing;\non the terraces, a band of men, women, and children are plucking the\nolives carefully from the trees, one by one; in the gymnasium on the\ntop of the Acropolis, men and youths are exercising, and as they\npractice with the javelin now and then it catches the sun and glints\ninto our eye; apart from these groups, in a shaded walk that overlooks\nthe city, a Guardian is pacing back and forth, talking in quick,\nearnest tones with his pupils.\n\nThese are occupations which, crudely or elaborately, men have always\nengaged in; and here in the Republic they engage in them still. What\nhas changed? What has profoundly changed is not the things that men do,\nbut the relations they bear to one another in doing them. In Plato\u2019s\ncommunity, servitude and compulsion and avarice and indolence are\ngone. Men mind their business for the sake of living well, in just\nrelations to the whole community of which they are a part. They live,\nin the strictest sense, according to nature; and because no one can\nenjoy a private privilege, each man can grow to his full stature and\nenter into every heritage of his citizenship. When Plato says no to the\ninstitutions and ways of life that men have blindly fostered, his eyes\nare open, and he is facing the light.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER THREE\n\n  How something happened to utopia between Plato and Sir Thomas\n      More; and how utopia was discovered again, along with the New\n      World.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER THREE\n\n\n1\n\nThere is a span of nearly two thousand years between Plato and Sir\nThomas More. During that time, in the Western World at any rate, utopia\nseems to disappear beyond the horizon. Plutarch\u2019s Life of Lycurgus\nlooks back into a mythical past; Cicero\u2019s essay on the state is a\nnegligible work; and St. Augustine\u2019s City of God is chiefly remarkable\nfor a brilliant journalistic attack upon the old order of Rome which\nreminds one of the contemporary diatribes of Maximilian Harden. Except\nfor these works there is, as far as I can discover, scarcely any other\npiece of writing which even hints at utopia except as utopia may refer\nto a dim golden age in the past when all men were virtuous and happy.\n\nBut while utopia dropt out of literature, it did not drop out of men\u2019s\nminds; and the utopia of the first fifteen hundred years after Christ\nis transplanted to the sky, and called the Kingdom of Heaven. It is\ndistinctly a utopia of escape. The world as men find it is full of\nsin and trouble. Nothing can be done about it except to repent of the\nsin and find refuge from the trouble in the life after the grave. So\nthe utopia of Christianity is fixed and settled: one can enter into\nthe Kingdom of Heaven if a passport has been granted, but one can do\nnothing to create or mold this heaven. Change and struggle and ambition\nand amelioration belong to the wicked world, and bring no final\nsatisfaction. Happiness lies not in the deed, but in having a secure\ncredit in the final balance of accounts--happiness, in other words,\nlies in the ultimate compensation. This world of fading empires and\ndilapidated cities is no home except for the violent and the \u201cworldly.\u201d\n\nIf the idea of utopia loses its practical hold during this period,\nthe will-to-utopia remains; and the rise of the monastic system and\nthe attempts of the great popes from Hildebrand onward to establish a\nuniversal empire under the shield of the church show that, as always,\nthere was a breach between the ideas which people carried in their\nheads and the things which actual circumstances and going institutions\ncompelled them to do. There is no need to consider these partial,\ninstitutional utopias until we get down to the nineteenth century. What\nconcerns us now is that the Kingdom of Heaven, as a utopia of escape,\nceased to hold men\u2019s allegiance when they discovered other channels and\nother possibilities.\n\nThe shift from a heavenly utopia to a worldly one came during that\nperiod of change and uneasiness which characterized the decline of the\nMiddle Age. Its first expression is the \u201cUtopia\u201d of Sir Thomas More,\nthe great chancellor who served under Henry VIII.\n\n\n2\n\nIn the introduction to More\u2019s \u201cUtopia\u201d one gets a vivid impression of\nthe forces that were stirring men\u2019s minds out of the sluggish routine\ninto which they had settled. The man who is supposed to describe the\ncommonwealth of Utopia is a Portuguese scholar, learned in Greek.\nHe has left his family possessions with his kinsmen and has gone\nadventuring for other continents with Americus Vesputius. This Raphael\nHythloday is the sort of sunburnt sailor one could probably have\nencountered in Bristol or Cadiz or Antwerp almost any day during the\nlate part of the fifteenth century. He has abandoned Aristotle, whom\nthe schoolmen had butchered and had made pemmican of, and through his\nconquest of Greek he has come into possession of that new learning\nwhich stems back to Plato; and his brain is teeming with the criticisms\nand suggestions of a strange, pagan philosophy. Moreover, he has been\nabroad to the Americas or the Indies, and he is ready to tell all who\nwill listen of a strange land on the other side of the world, where, as\nSterne said of France, \u201cthey do things better.\u201d No institution is too\nfantastic but that it might exist--on the other side of the world. No\nway of life is too reasonable but that a philosophical population might\nfollow it--on the other side of the world. Conceive of the world of\nideas which Greek literature had just opened up coming headlong against\nthe new lands which the magnetic compass had given men the courage to\nexplore, and utopia, as a fresh conception of the good life, becomes a\nthrobbing possibility.\n\n\n3\n\nIn setting out for Utopia Sir Thomas More left behind a scene which in\nits political violence and economic maladjustment looks queerly like\nour own. Indeed, there are a good many passages which need only have a\nfew names altered and the language itself cast into modern English in\norder to serve as editorial comment for a radical weekly review.\n\nConsider this man Raphael Hythloday, this errant member of the\nintelligentzia. Life as he knows it in the Europe of his day no\nlonger has a hold upon him. The rich are fattening upon the poor;\nland is being gathered into big parcels, at least in England; and\nturned over into sheep runs. The people who used to cultivate the land\nare compelled to leave their few acres and are thrown on their own\nresources. Soldiers who have returned from the wars can find nothing\nto do; disabled veterans and people accustomed to live as pensioners\non the more prosperous have become destitute. Extravagant luxury grows\non one hand; misery on the other. Those who are poor, beg; those who\nare proud, steal; and for their pains the thieves and the vagrants are\ntried and sentenced to the gibbet, where by dozens they hang before the\neyes of the market crowds.\n\nJust as today, people complain that the laws are not strict enough or\nthat they are not enforced; and everyone stubbornly refuses to look at\nthe matter through Raphael Hythloday\u2019s eyes and to see that the robbery\nand violence which are abroad are not a cause of bad times but a result\nof them.\n\nWhat can a man of intelligence do in such a world?\n\nMore\u2019s friend, Peter Giles, who is represented as the sponsor for\nRaphael, wonders why a man of Raphael\u2019s talent does not enter into the\nservice of the king--in short, go in for politics. Raphael answers\nthat he does not wish to be enslaved; and he cannot try to fetch\nhappiness on terms so abhorrent to his disposition, for \u201cmost princes\napply themselves more to the affairs of war than to the useful arts of\npeace, and are more set on acquiring new kingdoms right or wrong than\non governing those they possess.\u201d There is no use trying to tell them\nabout the wiser institutions of the Utopians: if they could not refute\nyour arguments they would say that the old ways were good enough for\ntheir ancestors and are good enough for them, even though they have\nwillingly let go of all the genuinely good things that might have been\ninherited from the past.\n\nSo much for the help an intelligent man might give on domestic\nproblems. As for international affairs, it is a mess of chicane and\nintrigue and brigandage. While so many people of influence are advising\npreparedness and \u201chow to carry on the war,\u201d what chance would a poor\nintellectual like Hythloday have if he stood up and said that the\ngovernment should withdraw their armies from foreign parts and try\nto improve conditions at home, instead of oppressing the people with\ntaxes and spilling their blood without bringing them a single blessed\nadvantage, whilst their manners are being corrupted by a long war, and\ntheir laws fall into contempt, with robbery and murder on every hand.\n\nMore, through the tongue of Raphael Hythloday, is painting a picture of\nthe life he sees about him; but in it we seem to see every feature of\nour own national countenance.\n\nThis unhonored and disoriented intellectual is the very emblem of some\nof our best spirits today. Rack and ruin have gone too far to admit\nof any sort of repair except that which proceeds from the bottom up;\nand so Hythloday freely admits that \u201cas long as there is any property,\nand while money is the standard of all other things, I cannot think\nthat a nation can be governed either justly or happily; not justly,\nbecause the best things will fall to the share of the worst men; nor\nhappily, because all things will be divided among a few (and even these\nare not in all respects happy), the rest being left to be absolutely\nmiserable.\u201d In short, says Hythloday, there is no salvation except\nthrough following the practices of the Utopians.\n\nSo the new world of exploration brings us within sight of a new world\nof ideas, and the beloved community, whose seed Plato had sought to\nimplant in men\u2019s minds, springs up again, after a fallow period of\nalmost two thousand years. What sort of country is it?\n\n\n4\n\nGeographically viewed, the island of Utopia exists only in More\u2019s\nimagination. All that we can say of it is that it is two hundred miles\nbroad, shaped something like a crescent, with an entrance into its\ngreat bay which lends itself to defence. There are fifty-four cities\nin the island; the nearest is twenty-four miles from its neighbor, and\nthe farthest is not more than a day\u2019s march distant. The chief town,\nAmaurot, is situated very nearly in the center; and each city has\njurisdiction over the land for twenty miles around; so that here again\nwe find the city-region as the unit of political life.\n\n\n5\n\nThe economic base of this commonwealth is agriculture, and no one is\nignorant of the art. Here and there over the countryside are great\nfarm-houses, equipt for carrying on agricultural operations. While\nthose who are well-adapted for rural life are free to live in the open\ncountry the whole year round, other workers are sent by turns from the\ncity to take part in the farm-labor. Every farmstead or \u201cfamily\u201d holds\nno less than forty men and women. Each year twenty of this family come\nback to town after two years in the country; and in their place another\ntwenty is sent out from the town, so that they may learn the country\nwork from those who have had at least a year\u2019s experience.\n\nAgricultural economics is so well advanced that the countryside knows\nexactly how much food is needed by the whole city-region; but the\nUtopians sow and breed more abundantly than they need, in order that\ntheir neighbors may have the overplus. Poultry-raising is also highly\nadvanced. The Utopians \u201cbreed an infinite multitude of chickens in a\nvery curious manner; for the hens do not sit and hatch them, but vast\nnumbers of eggs are laid in a gentle and equal heat, in order to be\nhatched\u201d--in short, they have discovered the incubator!\n\nDuring the harvest season the country magistrates inform the city\nmagistrates how many extra hands are needed for reaping; a draft of\ncity workers is made, and the work is commonly done in short order.\n\nWhile every man, woman, and child knows how to cultivate the soil,\nsince each has learned partly in school and partly by practice, every\nperson also has some \u201cpeculiar trade to which he applies himself,\nsuch as the manufacture of wool or flax, masonry, smith\u2019s work or\ncarpenter\u2019s work\u201d; and no trade is held in special esteem above the\nothers. (That is a great jump from the Republic where the mechanic arts\nare considered base and servile in nature!) The same trade usually\npasses down from father to son, since each family follows its own\nspecial occupation; but a man whose genius lies another way may be\nadopted into a family which plies another trade; and if after he has\nlearnt that trade, he wishes still to master another, this change is\nbrought about in the same manner. \u201cWhen he has learned both, he follows\nthat which he likes best, unless the public has more occasion for the\nother.\u201d\n\nThe chief and almost the only business of the magistrates is to see\nthat no one lives in idleness. This does not mean that the Utopians\nwear themselves out with \u201cperpetual toil from morning to night, as if\nthey were beasts of burden,\u201d for they appoint eight hours for sleep and\nsix for work, and the rest of the day is left to each man\u2019s discretion.\nThey are able to cut down the length of time needed for work, without\nour so-called labor saving machinery, by using the services of classes\nwhich in More\u2019s time were given for the most part to idleness--princes,\nrich men, healthy beggars, and the like. The only exception to this\nrule of labor is with the magistrates--who are not in the habit of\ntaking advantage of it--and the students, who upon proving their\nability are released from mechanical operations. If there is too great\na surplus of labor, men are sent out to repair the highways; but\nwhen no public undertaking is to be performed, the hours of work are\nlessened.\n\n\n6\n\nSo much for the daily industrial life of the Utopians. How are the\ngoods distributed?\n\nBetween the city and the country there is a monthly exchange of goods.\nThis occasion is made a festival, and the country people come into\ntown and take back for themselves the goods which the townspeople have\nmade; and the magistrates \u201ctake care to see it given to them.\u201d In back\nof this direct interchange of goods between town and country, between\nhousehold and household, there are doubtless regulations; and it is\nsimply our misfortune that Raphael Hythloday did not think it necessary\nto go into them. Within the cities, we must add, there are storehouses\nwhere a daily market takes place.\n\nAs with the business of production, the family is the unit of\ndistribution; and the city is composed of these units, rather than of\na multitude of isolated individuals. \u201cEvery city is divided into four\nequal parts, and in the middle of each there is a marketplace; what is\nbrought hither, and manufactured by the several families, is carried\nfrom thence to houses appointed for that purpose, in which all things\nof a sort are laid by themselves; and thither every father goes and\ntakes whatever he or his family stand in need of, without either paying\nfor it or leaving anything in exchange. There is no reason for giving\ndenial to any person, since there is such plenty of everything among\nthem; and there is no danger of a man\u2019s asking for more than he needs;\nthey have no inducements to do this, since they are sure they shall\nalways be supplied.\u201d\n\nMore goes on to explain this direct system of exchange, and to justify\nit. \u201cIt is the fear of want that makes any of the whole race of animals\neither greedy or ravenous, but besides fear, there is in man a pride\nthat makes him fancy it a particular glory to excel others in pomp and\nexcess. But by the laws of the Utopians there is no room for this. Near\nthese markets are others for all sorts of provisions, where there are\nnot only herbs, fruits, and bread, but also fish, fowl, and cattle.\nThere are also, without their towns, places appointed near some running\nwater for killing their beasts, and for washing away their filth.\u201d\n\nIn addition to the monthly apportionment of goods by the local\nmagistrates, the great council which meets at Amaurot once a year\nundertakes to examine the production of each region, and those regions\nthat suffer from a scarcity of goods are supplied out of the surplus\nof other regions, \u201cso that indeed the whole island is, as it were, one\nfamily.\u201d\n\nTaking it all together, there is pretty much the same standard of\nwell-being that we found in the Republic. More recognizes the instinct\nfor self-assertion and the exhibitionist element in man\u2019s makeup; but\nhe does not pander to it. The precious metals are held in contempt:\ngold is used to make chamberpots and chains for slaves; pearls are\ngiven to children who glory in them and enjoy them while they are young\nand are as much ashamed to use them afterwards as they are of their\npuppets and other toys. Gaudy clothes and jewelry are likewise out of\nfashion in Utopia. The shopkeepers of Bond Street and Fifth Avenue\nwould break their hearts here; for it is impossible to spend money or\nto spend other people\u2019s labor on articles which lend themselves solely\nto conspicuous display, and are otherwise neither useful nor beautiful.\nContrast More\u2019s Utopia with St. John\u2019s vision of heaven, and the\nworldly Utopia seems quite naked and austere. Two hundred years later,\nin Penn\u2019s city of Philadelphia, we might have fancied that we were\nwalking about the streets of Amaurot.\n\n\n7\n\nThe town life of the Utopians, as I have explained, rests upon rural\nfoundations; there is such a mixture of town and country as Peter\nKropotkin sought to realize in his sketch of \u201cFields, Factories, and\nWorkshops.\u201d Let us conjure up the town of Amaurot and see in what sort\nof environment the townspeople spend their days. Our Utopian city,\nalas! reminds us somewhat of its rivals in latter-day America; for\nRaphael tells us that he who knows one of their towns knows all of them.\n\nAmaurot lies on the side of a hill; it is almost a square, two miles on\neach side; and it faces the river Anider which takes its rise eighty\nmiles above the town, and gets lost in the ocean sixty miles below. The\ntown is compassed by a high, thick wall; the streets are convenient\nfor carriages and sheltered from the winds; and the houses are built\nin rows so that a whole side of the street looks like a single unit.\n(It was so that the great people built their houses in eighteenth\ncentury London and Edinburgh, as Belgrave Square, Charlotte Square, and\nthe great Adelphi Mansion designed by the Brothers Adam show us.) The\nstreets are twenty feet broad; and in back of the houses are gardens,\nwhich everyone has a hand in keeping up; and the people of the various\nblocks vie with each other in ordering their gardens, so that there\nis \u201cnothing belonging to the whole town that is more useful and more\npleasant.\u201d\n\nIn every street there are great halls, distinguished by particular\nnames, and lying at an equal distance from each other. In each hall\ndwells the magistrate of a district, who rules over thirty families,\nfifteen living on one side and fifteen on another; and since a family\nconsists of not more than sixteen and not less than ten people, this\nmagistrate--or Philarch as he is called--is the \u201ccommunity leader\u201d of\nsome four hundred people.\n\nIn these halls everyone meets and takes his principal meal. The\nstewards go to the market place at a particular hour, and, according\nto the number of people in their halls, carry home provisions. The\npeople who are in hospitals--which are built outside the walls and are\nso large they might pass for little towns--get the pick of the day\u2019s\nfood. At the hours of dinner and supper the whole block is called\ntogether by a trumpet, and everybody joins company, except such as are\nsick or in hospital, just as the students and fellows to this day eat\ntheir principal meal in an Oxford college. The dressing of meat and the\nordering of the tables belongs to the women; all those of every family\ntaking their place by turns. In the same building there is a common\nnursery and chapel; and so the women who have children to care for\nlabor under no inconvenience.\n\nThe midday meal is dispatched unceremoniously; but at the end of the\nday music always accompanies the meals, perfumes are burnt or sprinkled\naround, and they \u201cwant nothing that may cheer up their spirits.\u201d Bond\nStreet and Fifth Avenue may weep about the absence of conspicuous\nwaste in Utopia; but at supper time, at any rate, William Penn would\nbe uncomfortable. There is the odor of an uncommonly good club in the\ndescription of the final meal of the day: the smell of the barracks\nor the poorhouse, which we should find later in Robert Owen\u2019s common\nhalls, does not intrude for an instant. More, when you examine him\nclosely, does not altogether forget the mean sensual man who dwells\noccasionally in all of us!\n\n\n8\n\nNow that we have laid the foundations of the material life, we must\nobserve the limitations that are laid upon the daily activities of the\nUtopians. This brings us to the government.\n\nThe basis of the Utopian political state, as in the economic province,\nis the family. Every year thirty families choose a magistrate, known\nas a Philarch; and over every ten Philarchs, with the families subject\nto them, there is an Archphilarch. All the Philarchs, who are in\nnumber 200, choose the Prince out of a list of four, who are named by\nthe people of the four divisions of the city. The Prince is elected\nfor life, unless he be removed on suspicion of attempting to enslave\nthe people. The Philarchs are chosen for a single year; but they are\nfrequently re-elected. In order to keep their rulers from conspiring to\nupset the government, no matter of great importance can be set on foot\nwithout being sent to the Philarchs, \u201cwho, after they have communicated\nit to the families that belong to their divisions, and have considered\nit among themselves, make report to the senate; and upon great\noccasions the matter is referred to the council of the whole island.\u201d\n\nRecollect that each household is an industrial as well as a domestic\nunit, as was usual in the Middle Age, and you will perceive that this\nis an astute combination of industrial and political democracy on a\ngenuine basis of common interest.\n\nThe greater part of the business of the government relates to the\neconomic life of the people. There are certain other matters, however,\nwhich remain over for them; and these affairs constitute a blot on\nMore\u2019s conception of the ideal commonwealth. One of them is the\nregulation of travel; another is the treatment of crime; and a third is\nwar.\n\nIt is interesting to note that on two subjects which More is mightily\nconcerned to rectify in his own country--crime and war--he establishes\nconditions which are pretty far from being ideal or humane in his\nUtopia. A.\u00a0E. has well said that a man becomes the image of the thing\nhe hates. Everything that Raphael brings up against the government of\nEngland in the Introduction to Utopia could be brought with almost\nequal force, I believe, against the very country which is to serve as a\nstandard.\n\nWhile any man may travel if there is no particular occasion for him\nat home--whether he wishes to visit friends or see the rest of the\ncountry--it is necessary for him to carry a passport from the Prince.\nIf he stay in any place longer than a night he must follow his proper\noccupation; and if anyone goes out of the city without leave or\nis found wandering around without a passport, he is punished as a\nfugitive, and upon committing the offense a second time is condemned to\nslavery. This is a plain example of unimaginative harshness; and it is\nhard to explain away; indeed, I have no intention to.\n\nApparently More could not conceive of a perfectly happy commonwealth\nfor the majority of men if they still had to perform certain filthy\ndaily tasks, like the slaughtering of beef; and so he attempts to kill\ntwo birds with one stone: he creates a class of slaves, and he fills\nthis class by condemning to it people who have committed venial crimes.\nIn doing this, he overlooks the final objection to slavery in all its\nforms; namely, that it tends to corrupt the master.\n\nSince we are discussing the conditions that undermine More\u2019s\ncommonwealth, we may remark that war, too, remains; the difference\nbeing that the Utopians attempt to do by strategy, corruption, and\nwhat we should now call propaganda what less intelligent people do by\nsheer force of arms. If the Utopian incubator anticipates the modern\ninvention, their method of conducting war likewise anticipates our\nmodern technique of undermining the enemy\u2019s morale: these Utopians, in\nthe good and the bad, are our contemporaries! Among the just causes\nof war the Utopians count the seizure of territory, the oppression of\nforeign merchants, and the denial of access to land to nations capable\nof cultivating it. They take considerable pains to keep their \u201cbest\nsort of men for their own use at home, so they make use of the worst\nsort of men for the consumption of war.\u201d In other words, they regard\nwar as a means, among other things, of weeding out undesirable elements\nin the community.\n\nIt is a relief to turn away from these residual iniquities to marriage\nand religion!\n\nIn marriage there is a curious mixture of the personal conception of\nsexual relations, which is the modern note, with a belief in certain\nformal specifications which was the distinctly medi\u00e6val quality.\nThus on one hand the Utopians take care that the bride and the\nbridegroom are introduced to each other, in their nakedness, before the\nceremony; and the grounds for divorce are adultery and insufferable\nperverseness. When two people cannot agree they are permitted to escape\nthe bond by mutual agreement under approval granted by the Senate after\nstrict inquiry. On the other hand, unchastity is sternly punished, and\nthose who commit adultery are condemned to slavery and not given the\nprivilege of a second marriage.\n\nIn religion there is complete toleration for all creeds, with this\nexception: that those who dispute violently about religion or attempt\nto use any other force than that of mild persuasion are punished for\nbreaking the public peace.\n\n\n9\n\nThere is not the space to follow the life of the Utopians in all its\ndetails. It is time to discuss the world of ideas by which these\nUtopians chart their daily activities. This exposition of the basic\nUtopian values has been so admirably put by Sir Thomas More himself\nthat the greater part of our conclusion will inevitably fall within\nquotation marks.\n\nThe Utopians \u201cdefine virtue thus: that it is a living according to\nNature, and think that we are made by God for that end; they believe\nthat a man then follows Nature when he pursues or avoids things\naccording to the direction of reason.... Reason directs us to keep\nour minds as free from passion and as cheerful as we can, and that we\nshould consider ourselves bound by the ties of good-nature and humanity\nto use our utmost endeavors to help forward the happiness of all other\npersons; for there never was any man such a morose and severe pursuer\nof virtue, such an enemy to pleasure, that though he set hard rules for\nmen to undergo much pain, many watchings and other rigors, yet did not\nat the same time advise them to do all they could to relieve and ease\nthe miserable, and who did not represent gentleness and good nature as\namiable dispositions.... A life of pleasure is either a real evil, and\nin that case we ought not to assist others in their pursuit of it, but,\non the contrary, to keep them from it all we can, as from that which is\nmost hurtful and deadly; or if it is a good thing, so that we not only\nmay but ought to help others to it, why then ought not a man to begin\nwith himself? Since no man can be more bound to look after the good of\nanother than after his own....\n\n\u201cThus as they define Virtue to be living according to Nature, so they\nimagine that Nature prompts all people to seek after pleasure, as the\nend of all they do. They also observe that in order to further our\nsupporting the pleasures of life, Nature inclines us to enter into\nsociety; for there is no man so much raised above the rest of mankind\nas to be the only favorite of Nature, who, on the contrary, seems to\nhave placed on a level all those that belong to the same species.\nUpon this they infer that no man ought to seek his own conveniences\nso eagerly as to prejudice others; and therefore they think that all\nagreements between private persons ought to be observed, but likewise\nthat all those laws ought to be kept, which either a good prince has\npublished in due form, to which a people that is neither oppressed with\ntyranny nor circumvented by fraud, has consented, for distributing\nthese conveniences of life which afford us all our pleasures.\n\n\u201cThey think it is an evidence of true wisdom for a man to pursue his\nown advantages, as far as the laws allow it. They account it piety to\nprefer public good to one\u2019s private concerns; but they think it unjust\nfor a man to seek for pleasure by snatching another man\u2019s pleasures\nfrom him.\n\n\u201cThus upon an inquiry into the whole matter, they reckon that all\nour actions, and even all our virtues, terminate in pleasure, as in\nour chief end and greatest happiness; and they call every motion or\nstate, either of body or mind, in which Nature teaches us to delight,\na pleasure. They cautiously limit pleasure only to those appetites to\nwhich Nature leads us; for they say that Nature leads us only to those\ndelights to which reason as well as sense carries us, and by which we\nneither injure any other person nor lose the possession of greater\npleasures, and of such as draw no troubles after them.\u201d\n\nThus the Utopians discriminate between natural pleasures and those\nwhich have some sting or bitterness concealed in them. The love of fine\nclothes is considered by Utopians as a pleasure of the latter sort;\nlikewise is the desire of those who possess fine clothes to be kowtowed\nto by other people. Men who heap up wealth without using it are in the\nsame class; and those who throw dice or hunt--for in Utopia hunting is\nturned over to the butchers, and the butchers are slaves.\n\nNow Utopians \u201creckon up several sorts of pleasures which they call true\nones; some belong to the body and others to the mind. The pleasures of\nthe mind lie in knowledge, and in that delight which the contemplation\nof truth carries with it; to which they add the joyful reflections on\na well-spent life; and the assured hopes of a future happiness. They\ndivide the pleasures of the body into two sorts; the one is that\nwhich gives our senses some real delight, and is performed, either by\nrecruiting nature, and supplying those parts which feed the internal\nheat of life by eating and drinking; or when nature is eased of any\nsurcharge that oppresses it; when we are relieved from sudden pain,\nor that which arises from satisfying the appetite which Nature has\nwisely given for the propagation of the species. There is another\nkind of pleasure that arises neither from our receiving what the body\nrequires, nor its being relieved when overcharged, and yet by a secret,\nunseen virtue affects the senses, raises the passions, and strikes the\nmind with generous impressions; this is the pleasure that arises from\nmusic. Another kind of bodily pleasure is that which arises from an\nundisturbed and vigorous constitution of body, when life and active\nspirits seem to actuate every part. This lively health, when entirely\nfree from all mixture of pain, of itself gives an inward pleasure ...\nand Utopians reckon it the foundation and basis of all the other joys\nof life, since this alone makes the state of life easy and desirable;\nand when this is wanting a man is really capable of no other pleasure.\u201d\nThe crowning pleasure of the Utopian is the cultivation of the mind;\nand the leisure hours of the people, as well as the professional\nscholars, are spent in the lecture hall and the study.\n\n\n10\n\nSuch are the goals for which the Utopians direct their social order.\nThese values are, I need scarcely point out, rooted in the nature of\nman, and not in any set of external institutions. The aim of every\nUtopian institution is to help every man to help himself. When we put\nthe matter in these bald phrases, what More brings forward seems weak\nand platitudinous. Behind it all, however, is a vital idea: namely,\nthat our attempts to live the good life are constantly perverted by our\nefforts to gain a living; and that by juggling gains and advantages,\nby striving after power and riches and distinction, we miss the\nopportunity to live as whole men. People become the nursemaids of their\nfurniture, their property, their titles, their position; and so they\nlose the direct satisfaction that furniture or property would give.\n\nTo cultivate the soil rather than simply to get away with a job; to\ntake food and drink rather than to earn money; to think and dream and\ninvent, rather than to increase one\u2019s reputation; in short, to grasp\nthe living reality and spurn the shadow--this is the substance of\nthe Utopian way of life. Power and wealth and dignity and fame are\nabstractions; and men cannot live by abstractions alone. In this Utopia\nof the New World every man has the opportunity to be a man because no\none else has the opportunity to be a monster. Here, too, the chief end\nof man is that he should grow to the fullest stature of his species.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER FOUR\n\n  How the new Humanism of the Renascence brings us within sight of\n      Christianopolis; and how we have for the first time a glimpse\n      of a modern utopia.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER FOUR\n\n\n1\n\nA hundred years pass, and the man who next conducts us into Utopia is\na Humanist scholar. After the manner of his time, he answers to the\nlatinized name, Johann Valentin Andre\u00e6. He is a traveller, a social\nreformer, and above all things a preacher; and so the vision he imparts\nto us of Christianopolis seems occasionally to flicker into blackness\nwhilst he moralizes for us and tells us to the point of tedium what\nhis views are concerning the life of man, and in particular the\nconceptions of Christianity which his countrymen, the Germans, are\ndebating about. Sometimes, when we are on the point of coming to grips\nwith his utopia, he will annoy us by going off on a long tirade about\nthe wickedness of the world and the necessity for fastening one\u2019s gaze\nupon the life hereafter--for Protestantism seems just as other-worldly\nas Catholicism. It is the Humanist Andre\u00e6 rather than the Lutheran\nAndre\u00e6 who paints the picture of a Christian city. While Andre\u00e6 sticks\nto Christianopolis his insight is deep, his views are sound, and his\nproposals are rational; and more than once he will amaze us by putting\nforward ideas which seem to leap three hundred years ahead of his time\nand environment.\n\nIt is impossible to get rid of the personal flavor of Andre\u00e6: his fine\nintelligence and his candor make our contacts with Christianopolis\nquite different from the dreary guidebook sketches which some of the\nlater utopians will inflict upon us. The two other utopians who\nwrote in the same half century as Andre\u00e6--Francis Bacon and Tommaso\nCampanella--are quite second-rate in comparison; Bacon with his\npositively nauseating foppishness about details in dress and his\nsuperstitious regard for forms and ceremonials, and Campanella, the\nlonely monk whose City of the Sun seems a marriage of Plato\u2019s Republic\nand the Court of Montezuma. When Bacon talks about science, he talks\nlike a court costumer who is in the habit of describing the stage\nproperties for a masque; and it is hard to tell whether he is more\ninterested in the experiments performed by the scientists of the New\nAtlantis or the sort of clothes they wear while engaged in them. There\nis nothing of the snob or the dilettante about Andre\u00e6: His eye fastens\nitself upon essentials, and he never leaves them except when--for he is\nnecessarily a man of his age--he turns his gaze piously to heaven.\n\nThis teeming, struggling European world that Andre\u00e6 turns his back upon\nhe knows quite well; for he has lived in Herrenburg, Koenigsbrunn,\nTuebingen, Strassburg, Heidelberg, Frankfurt, Geneva, Vaihingen,\nand Calw; and he is in correspondence with learned men abroad, in\nparticular with Samuel Hartlib, who lives in England, and with John\nAmos Comenius. Like the Chancellor in Christianopolis, he longs for an\n\u201cabode situated below the sky, but at the same time above the dregs\nof this known world.\u201d Quite simply, he finds himself wrecked on the\nshore of an island dominated by the city of Christianopolis. After\nbeing examined as to his ideas of life and morals, his person, and his\nculture, he is admitted to the community.\n\n\n2\n\nThis island is a whole world in miniature. As in the Republic, the unit\nonce more is the valley section, for the \u201cisland is rich in grain and\npasture fields, watered with rivers and brooks, adorned with woods and\nvineyards, full of animals.\u201d\n\nIn outward appearance, Christianopolis does not differ very much from\nthe pictures of the cities one finds in seventeenth century travel\nbooks, except for a unity and orderliness that these cities sometimes\nlack. \u201cIts shape is a square whose side is 700 feet, well fortified\nwith four towers and a wall.... It looks therefore towards the four\nquarters of the earth. Of buildings there are two rows, or if you count\nthe seat of the government and the storehouses, four; there is only one\npublic street, and only one marketplace, but this one is of a very high\norder.\u201d In the middle of the city there is a circular temple, a hundred\nfeet in diameter; all the buildings are three stories; and public\nbalconies lead to them. Provision against fire is made by building\nthe houses of burnt stone and separating them by fire-proof walls. In\ngeneral, \u201cthings look much the same all around, not extravagant nor yet\nunclean; fresh air and ventilation are provided throughout. About four\nhundred citizens live here in religious faith and peace of the highest\norder.\u201d The whole city is divided into three parts, one to supply food,\none for drill and exercise, and one for looks. The remainder of the\nisland serves the purposes of agriculture, and for workshops.\n\n\n3\n\nWhen we look back upon the Republic, with its external organization\nso plainly modeled upon military Sparta, we see the camp and the\nsoldier giving the pattern to the life of the whole community. In\nUtopia, the fundamental unit was the farmstead and the family; and\nfamily discipline, which arises naturally enough in rural conditions,\nwas transferred to the city. In Christianopolis, the workshop and\nthe worker set the lines upon which the community is developed; and\nwhatever else this society may be, it is a \u201crepublic of workers, living\nin equality, desiring peace, and renouncing riches.\u201d If Utopia exhibits\nthe communism of the family, Christianopolis presents the communism of\nthe guild.\n\nIndustrially speaking, there are three sections in Christianopolis.\nOne of them is devoted to agriculture and animal husbandry. Each of\nthese departments has appropriate buildings, and directly opposite them\nis a rather large tower which connects them with the city buildings;\nunder the tower a broad vaulted entrance leads into the city, and a\nsmaller one to the individual houses. The dome of this tower roofs\nwhat we should call a guildhall, and here the citizens of the quarter\ncome together as often as required to \u201cact on sacred as well as\ncivil matters.\u201d It is plain that these workers are not sheep led by\nwise shepherds, as in the Republic, but the members of autonomous,\nself-regulating groups.\n\nThe next quarter contains the mills, bake-shops, meat-shops, and\nfactories for making whatever is done with machinery apart from\nfire. As Christianopolis welcomes originality in invention, there\nare a variety of enterprises within this domain; among them, paper\nmanufacturing plants, saw mills, and establishments for grinding\nand polishing arms and tools. There are common kitchens and wash\nhouses, too; for, as we shall see presently, life in this ideal city\ncorresponds to what we experience today in New York, London, and many\nanother modern industrial city.\n\nThe third quarter is given over to the metallurgical industries, as\nwell as to those like the glass, brick, and earthenware industries\nwhich require constant fire. It is necessary to point out that in\nplanning the industrial quarters of Christianopolis, these seventeenth\ncentury Utopians have anticipated the best practice that has been\nworked out today, after a century of disorderly building. The\nseparation of the city into zones, the distinction between \u201cheavy\u201d\nindustries and \u201clight\u201d industries, the grouping of similar industrial\nestablishments, the provision of an agricultural zone adjacent to the\ncity--in all this our garden cities are but belated reproductions of\nChristianopolis.\n\nMoreover, in Christianopolis, there is a conscious application of\nscience to industrial processes; one might almost say that these\nartisans believed in efficiency engineering; for \u201chere in truth\nyou see a testing of nature herself. The men are not driven to a\nwork with which they are unfamiliar, like pack-animals to their\ntask, but they have been trained before in an accurate knowledge of\nscientific matters,\u201d on the theory that \u201cunless you analyze matter by\nexperiment, unless you improve the deficiencies of knowledge by more\ncapable instruments, you are worthless.\u201d The dependence of industrial\nimprovement upon deliberate scientific research may be a new discovery\nfor the practical man, but it is an old story in Utopia.\n\n\n4\n\nWhat is the character of this artisan democracy? The answer to this\nis summed up in one of those sayings that Andre\u00e6, in the midst of his\nenergetic exposition, drops by the way.\n\n\u201cTo be wise and to work are not incompatible, if there is moderation.\u201d\n\nSo it follows that \u201ctheir artisans are almost entirely educated men.\nFor that which other people think is the proper characteristic of a few\n(and yet if you consider the stuffing of inexperience by learning, the\ncharacteristic of too many already) this, the inhabitants argue, should\nbe attained by all individuals. They say that neither the substance of\nletters is such, nor yet the difficulty of work, that one man, if given\nenough time, cannot master both.\u201d\n\n\u201cTheir work, or as they prefer to hear it called, \u2018the employment of\ntheir hands,\u2019 is conducted in a certain prescribed way, and all things\nare brought into a public booth. From here every workman receives out\nof the stock on hand whatever is necessary for the work of the coming\nweek. For the whole city is, as it were, one single workshop, but of\nall different sorts and crafts. The ones in charge of these duties\nare stationed in the small towers at the corners of the wall; they\nknow ahead of time what is to be made, in what quantity, and of what\nform, and they inform the mechanics of these items. If the supply of\nmaterial in the work booth is sufficient, the workmen are permitted to\nindulge and give free play to their inventive genius. No one has any\nmoney, nor is there any use for any private money; yet the republic has\nits own treasury. And in this respect the inhabitants are especially\nblessed, because no one can be superior to the other in the amount of\nriches owned, since the advantage is rather one of power and genius,\nand the highest respect that of morals and piety. They have very few\nworking hours, yet no less is accomplished than in other places, as it\nis considered disgraceful by all that one should take more rest and\nleisure time than is allowed.\u201d\n\nIn addition to the special trades, there are \u201cpublic duties to which\nall citizens have obligation, such as watching, guarding, harvesting\nof grain and wine, working roads, erecting buildings, draining ground;\nalso certain duties of assisting in the factories which are imposed\nupon all in turn according to age and sex, but not very often nor for\na long time. For even though certain experienced men are put in charge\nof all the duties, yet when men are asked for, no one refuses the state\nhis services and strength. For what we are in our homes, they are in\ntheir city, which they not undeservedly think a home. And for this\nreason it is no disgrace to perform any public function.... Hence all\nwork, even that which is considered rather irksome, is accomplished in\ngood time, and without much difficulty, since the promptness of the\ngreat number of workmen permits them easily to collect or distribute\nthe great mass of things.\u201d\n\nIn this Christianopolis, as Mr. Bertrand Russell would put it, the\ncreative rather than the possessive impulses are uppermost. Work is the\nmain condition of existence, and this good community faces it. It is a\npretty contrast to the attitude of the leisured classes who, as Andre\u00e6\nsays, with an entirely mistaken sense of delicacy shrink from touching\nearth, water, stones, coal, and things of that sort, but think it grand\nto have in their possession to delight them \u201chorses, dogs, harlots and\nother similar creatures.\u201d\n\n\n5\n\nThe place of commerce in this scheme of life is simple. It does not\nexist for the sake of individual gain. Hence no one engages in commerce\non his own hook, for such matters are put in the hands of \u201cthose\nselected to attend to them,\u201d and the aim of commerce is not to gain\nmoney but to increase the variety of things at the disposal of the\nlocal community; so that--and again Andre\u00e6 steps in for emphasis--\u201cwe\nmay see the peculiar production of each land, and so communicate with\neach other that we may seem to have the advantages of the universe in\none place, as it were.\u201d\n\n\n6\n\nThe constitution of the family in Christianopolis follows pretty\ndefinitely upon the lines dictated by urban occupations; for Andre\u00e6\nis a city man, and since he does not despise the advantages city life\ncan give, he does not shrink from their consequences. One of these\nconsequences is, surely, the restriction of domesticity, or rather, the\nprojection in the city at large of the functions that in a farmstead\nwould be carried on within the bosom of the family.\n\nWhen a lad is twenty-four and a lass is eighteen, they are permitted to\nmarry, with the benefit of Christian rites and services, and a decorous\navoidance of drunkenness and gluttony after the ceremony. Marriage is\na simple matter. There are no dowries to consider, no professional\nanxieties to face, no housing shortage to keep one from finding a home,\nand above all, perhaps, no landlord to propitiate with money, since\nall houses are owned by the city and are granted and assigned to\nindividuals for their use. Virtue and beauty are the only qualities\nthat govern a marriage in Christianopolis. Furniture is provided with\nthe house out of the public store. If in Utopia the families are\ngrouped together in a patriarchal household, such as More himself\nmaintained at Chelsea, in Christianopolis they consist of isolated\ncouples, four, at most six people in all, a woman, a man, and such\nchildren as are not yet of school age.\n\nLet us visit a young couple in Christianopolis. We reach the house\nby way of a street, twenty feet broad, faced by houses with a wide\nfrontage on the street, some forty feet in length, and of from fifteen\nto twenty-five feet in depth. In our crowded towns, today, where people\npay for land by the front foot, the frontage is narrow and the houses\nare deep; and as a result there is a dreadful insufficiency of light\nand air; but in Christianopolis, as in some of the older European\ntowns, the houses are built to get a maximum of air and sunlight. If\nit is raining when we make our visit, a covered walk, five feet wide,\nsupported by columns twelve feet high, will shelter us from the rain.\n\nOur friends live, we shall say, in one of the average apartments;\nso they have three rooms, a bathroom, a sleeping apartment, and a\nkitchen. \u201cThe middle part within the tower has a little open space with\na wide window, where wood and the heavier things are raised aloft by\npulleys\u201d--in short, a dumbwaiter. Looking out from the window in the\nrear, we face a well-kept garden; and if our host is inclined to give\nus wine, he may let us take our pick from among the cobwebs of a small\nprivate cellar in the basement, where such things are kept. If it is a\ncold day, the furnace is going; or if we happen to make our visit in\nthe summer time, the awnings are drawn.\n\nOur host makes apologies, perhaps, for a litter of wood and shavings\nthat occupies a corner of the kitchen, for he has just been putting up\na few shelves in his spare time, and has borrowed a kit of tools from\nthe public supply house. (Since he is not a carpenter, he has no need\nfor these tools the rest of the year; and other people can have their\nturn at them.) Coming from Utopia, one of the things that strikes us is\nthe absence of domestic attendance; and when we ask our hostess about\nit, she tells us that she will not have anyone to wait upon her until\nshe is confined.\n\n\u201cBut isn\u2019t there a lot of work for you to do all by yourself?\u201d we shall\nask.\n\n\u201cNot for anybody with a college training,\u201d she will answer. \u201cYou see\nthat our furnishings are quite simple; and since there are no gimcracks\nto be dusted, no polished tables to be oiled, no carpets to be swept,\nand nothing in our apartment that is just for show to prove that we can\nafford to live better than our neighbors, the work is scarcely more\nthan enough to keep one in good health and temper. Of course, cooking\nmeals is always something of a nuisance; and washing up is worse. But\nmy husband and I share the work together, in everything but sewing and\nwashing clothes, and you would be surprised how quickly everything\ngets done. Work is usually galling when somebody else is taking his\nease while one is doing it; but where husband and wife share alike, as\nin Christianopolis, there is really nothing to it. If you\u2019ll stay to\ndinner, you\u2019ll find out how easily it goes. Since you haven\u2019t brought\nyour rations, my husband will get some cooked meats in the public\nkitchen, and that will do for all of us.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo one need be surprised at the rather cramped quarters,\u201d Andre\u00e6\nhastens to interject. \u201cPeople who house vanity ... can never live\nspaciously enough. They burden others and are burdened themselves, and\nno one measures their necessities, nay even their comforts, easily\notherwise than by an unbearable and unmovable mass. Oh, only those\npersons are rich who have all of which they have real need, who admit\nnothing else, merely because it is possible to have it in abundance.\u201d\n\nCarried to its extreme, you will find this philosophy put once for all\nin Thoreau\u2019s Walden. We have got our bearings in Utopia, I believe,\nwhen we have determined what a life abundant consists of, and what will\nsuffice for it.\n\n\n7\n\nSuppose that our friends have children. During the early years of\ntheir life they are in the care of their mother. When they have\ncompleted their sixth year, the children are given over to the care of\nthe community, and both sexes continue in school through the stages\nof childhood, youth, and early maturity. \u201cNo parent gives closer or\nmore careful attention to his children than is given here, for the\nmost upright preceptors, men as well as women, are placed over them.\nMoreover,\u201d the parents \u201ccan visit their children, even unseen by them,\nas often as they have leisure. As this is an institution for the public\ngood, it is managed agreeably as a common charge for all the citizens.\nThey see to it that the food is appetizing and wholesome, that the\ncouches and beds are clean and comfortable, and that the clothes and\nattire of the whole body are clean.... If diseases of the skin or body\nare contracted, the individuals are cared for in good time; and to\navoid the spreading of infection, they are quarantined.\u201d\n\nThere is scarcely need to examine the program of study except in its\nbroad outlines. It is enough to observe that \u201cthe young men have their\nstudy period in the morning, the girls in the afternoon, and matrons as\nwell as learned men are their instructors.... The rest of their time\nis devoted to manual training and domestic art and science, as each\none\u2019s occupation is assigned to his natural inclination. When they\nhave vacant time they are permitted to engage in honorable physical\nexercises either in the open spaces of the town or in the field.\u201d\n\nTwo points, however, deserve our attention. The first is that the\nschool is run as a miniature republic. The second is the calibre of the\ninstructors. \u201cThe instructors,\u201d says our zealous humanist, \u201care not\nmen from the dregs of human society nor such as are useless for other\noccupations, but the choice of all the citizens, persons whose standing\nin the Republic is known and who very often have access to the highest\npositions of the state.\u201d\n\nThe last phrase again transports me back to the modern world. I see\nthis fine humanist ideal budding in another place. This time it is\na summer school in the hills of New Hampshire, where the children\ngovern themselves in the classroom, where there is no punishment\nexcept temporary exclusion from the group, and where, above all, each\ninstructor is chosen because of his creative practice in the subject\nwhich he teaches: a highly gifted composer teaches music, an athlete\nteaches gymnastics, a poet teaches literature. Then I think of all the\ncasual and wasted talents of people who for little more than the asking\nwould share their love of the arts and sciences with little children,\nif only those who are in charge of little children were not too blind\nor too fearful to make use of them. Faraday\u2019s classic lectures on\nthe physics of the candle, and Ruskin\u2019s addresses to a young ladies\u2019\nboarding school on the function of literature--such things might be\nmultiplied. It is not the creation of this utopian method that is\ndifficult; for the thing has already been done: what we need is its\nextension. Then children might come to school as gaily as they do in\nPeterborough, N.\u00a0H., on the lush summer mornings; and people would\nnot turn their backs on learning any more than they would turn their\nbacks on life. If anyone thinks that Johann Andre\u00e6\u2019s prescription for\na teaching staff is an impossible one, let him visit the Peterborough\nSchool, and examine its records and achievements.\n\nIt remains to record the further stages of learning. The halls of the\ncentral citadel are divided into twelve departments, and except for the\narmory, the archives, the printing establishment, and the treasury,\nthese halls are devoted entirely to the arts and sciences.\n\nThere is, to begin with, a laboratory of physical science. \u201cHere the\nproperties of metals, minerals, and vegetables, and even the life of\nanimals, are examined, purified, increased, and united for the use of\nthe human race and in the interests of health.... Here men learn to\nregulate fire, make use of air, value the water, and test the earth.\u201d\n\nNext to this laboratory is a Drug Supply House, where a pharmacy is\nscientifically developed, for the curing of physical disease, and\nadjoining this is a school of medicine, or as Andre\u00e6 reports, \u201ca place\ngiven over to anatomy.... The value of ascertaining the location of\nthe organs and of assisting the struggles of nature no one would deny,\nunless he be as ignorant of himself as are the barbarians.... The\ninhabitants of Christianopolis teach their youth the operations of life\nand the various organs, from the parts of the physical body.\u201d\n\nWe come now then to a Natural Science laboratory which is in effect a\nMuseum of Natural History, an institution founded in Utopia a century\nand a half before a partial and inadequate substitute--a mere extension\nof the curio chamber of a Country House--was presented to an admiring\nworld as the British Museum. \u201cThis,\u201d as Andre\u00e6 says, \u201ccannot be too\nelegantly described,\u201d and I heartily agree with him; for he paints the\npicture of a museum which the American Museum at New York or South\nKensington in London has only begun to realize within the last decade\nor two of their existence.\n\n\u201cNatural history is here seen painted on the walls in detail, and\nwith greatest skill. The phenomena of the sky, views of the earth in\ndifferent regions, the different races of men, representations of\nanimals, the forms of growing things, classes of stones and gems, are\nnot only on hand and named, but they even teach and make known their\nnature and qualities.... Truly is not recognition of things of the\nearth much easier of competent demonstration if illustrative materials\nare at hand and if there is some guide to the memory? For instruction\nenters altogether more easily through the eyes than through the ears,\nand much more pleasantly in the presence of refinement than among the\nbase. They are deceived who think it is impossible to teach except in\ndark caves and with a gloomy brow. A liberal minded man is never so\nkeen as when he has his instructors on confidential terms.\u201d\n\nGoing farther, we find a mathematics laboratory and a department of\nmathematical instruments. The first is \u201cremarkable for its diagrams of\nthe heavens, as the hall of physics for its diagrams of the earth....\nA chart of the star-studded heavens and a reproduction of the whole\nshining host above were shown,\u201d ... and also \u201cdifferent illustrations\nrepresenting tools and machines, small models, figures of geometry;\ninstruments of the mechanical arts, drawn, named, and explained.\u201d I\ncannot help expressing my admiration here for the concrete imagination\nof this remarkable scholar: he deliberately anticipated, not in\nthe vague, allegorical form that Bacon does, but as lucidly as an\narchitect or a museum curator, the sort of institute which South\nKensington, with its Departments of Physical and Natural Science,\nor perhaps the Smithsonian in America, has just begun to resemble.\nIf our museums had begun with the ideal Andre\u00e6 had in mind, instead\nof with the miscellaneous rubbish which was the nucleus of their\ncollections--and still remains the nucleus in many of the less advanced\ninstitutions--the presentation of the sciences would be a more adequate\nthing than it is.\n\nDoes Andre\u00e6 leave the fine arts out of his picture? By no means.\n\u201cOpposite the pharmacy is a very roomy shop for pictorial art, an art\nin which the city takes the greatest delight. For the city, besides\nbeing decorated all over with pictures representing the various phases\nof the earth, makes use of them especially in the instruction of youth\nand for rendering learning more easy.... Besides, pictures and statues\nof famous men are to be seen everywhere, an incentive of no mean value\nto the young for striving to imitate their virtue.... At the same time\nalso, the beauty of forms is so pleasing to them that they embrace with\na whole heart the inner beauty of virtue itself.\u201d\n\nAt the summit of art and science we naturally find in Christianopolis\nthe temple of religion. Alas! the hand of Calvin has been busy in\nChristianopolis--recollect that Andre\u00e6 once lived in Geneva and admired\nits ordinances--and attendance at prayers is compulsory. In order to\nget an idea of this great circular temple, three hundred sixteen feet\nin circumference and seventy feet high, we must think of a colossal\nmoving picture theater in a modern metropolis. The comparison is not\nessentially sacrilegious; and I believe that those who will take\nthe trouble to look below the surface will find without difficulty\nthe common denominator between the profane and the ecclesiastical\ninstitution. (Attendance at motion pictures, I must quickly add for the\nbenefit of the future historian, has not yet been made compulsory in\nthe modern metropolis.)\n\nOne-half of the temple is where the public gatherings take place; and\nthe other is reserved for the distribution of the sacraments and for\nmusic. \u201cAt the same time, the sacred comedies, by which they set so\nmuch store, and are entertained every three months, are shown in the\ntemple.\u201d\n\n\n8\n\nWe have discussed folk, work, and place in Christianopolis; and we have\ndealt in an admittedly sketchy fashion with culture and art. We must\nnow turn attention to the polity; and here we must note that Andre\u00e6\u2019s\ndescription shifts for once to an allegorical plane, and departs not a\nlittle from the realism of his treatment of science and the arts.\n\nAt the bottom of the polity there are glimpses of a local industrial\nassociation, meeting in the common halls that are provided in the\ntowers of each of the industrial quarters; and we gather that to\nrepresent the city at large twenty-four councilmen are chosen, while\nas the executive department there is a triumvirate consisting of a\nMinister, a Judge, and a Director of Learning, each of whom is married,\nfor metaphorical point, to Conscience, Understanding, and Truth,\nrespectively. \u201cEach one of the leaders does his own duty, yet not\nwithout the knowledge of others; all consult together in matters that\nconcern the safety of the state.\u201d\n\nIn the censorship of books, Christianopolis reminds us of the Republic;\nin the exclusion of lawyers it calls up nearly every other utopia; and\nin its attitude towards crime it has a temperance and leniency that\nis all its own, for \u201cthe judges of this Christian city observe this\ncustom especially, that they punish most severely those misdeeds which\nare directed straight against God, less severely those which injure\nmen, and lightest of all those who harm only property. As the Christian\ncitizens are always chary of spilling blood, they do not willingly\nagree upon the death sentence as a form of punishment.... For anyone\ncan destroy a man but only the best can reform.\u201d\n\nHow shall we sum up this government? Let Andre\u00e6 speak his own words;\nfor he has reached the innermost shrine of Christianopolis and\nperceives the center of activity in the state.\n\n\u201cHere religion, justice, and learning have their abode, and theirs\nis the control of the city.... I often wonder what people mean who\nseparate and disjoint their best powers, the joining of which might\nrender them blessed as far as may be on earth. There are those who\nwould be considered religious, who throw off all things human; there\nare some who are pleased to rule, though without any religion at all;\nlearning makes a great noise, flattering now this one, now that, yet\napplauding itself most. What finally may the tongue do except provoke\nGod, confuse men, and destroy itself? So there would seem to be a need\nof co-operation which only Christianity can give--Christianity which\nconciliates God with men and unites men together, so that they have\npious thoughts, do good deeds, know the truth, and finally die happily\nto live eternally.\u201d\n\nThere are some who might object to this statement on the ground that it\nsmacked too heartily of supernatural religion; but it remains just as\nvalid if we translate it into terms whose theological reactions have\nbeen neutralized. To have a sense of values, to know the world in which\nthey are set, and to be able to distribute them--this is our modern\nversion of Andre\u00e6\u2019s conception of religion, learning, and justice. A\nlittle search might uncover another expression of the Humanist ideal\nas complete and magnificent as this; but I doubt if it would find a\nbetter one. In essence, this blunt and forthright German scholar is\nstanding shoulder to shoulder with Plato: his Christianopolis is as\nenduring as the best nature of men.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER FIVE\n\n  How Bacon and Campanella, who have a great reputation as\n      utopians, are little better than echoes of the men who went\n      before them.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER FIVE\n\n\n1\n\nA Genoese sea-captain is the guest of a Grand Master of the Knights\nHospitaller. This sea-captain tells him of a great country under the\nequator, dominated by the City of the Sun. The outward appearance of\nthis country is a little strange--the city with its seven rings named\nafter the seven planets, and its four gates that lead to the four\nquarters of the earth, and the hill that is topt by a grand temple,\nand the walls covered with laws and alphabets and paintings of natural\nphenomena, and the Rulers--Power, Wisdom, and Love--with the learned\ndoctors, Astrologus, Cosmographus, Arithmeticus, and their like: it\nis an apparition such as never yet was seen on land or sea. Small\nwonder, for this City of the Sun existed only in the exotic brain of a\nCalabrian monk, Tommaso Campanella, whose Utopia existed in manuscript\nbefore Andre\u00e6 wrote his Christianopolis.\n\nWe shall not stay long in the City of the Sun. After we have become\nfamiliar with the outward color and form of the landscape, we discover,\nalas! that it is not a foreign country we are exploring, but a sort of\npicture puzzle put together out of fragments from Plato and More. As in\nthe Republic, there is a complete community of property, a community of\nwives, and an equality of the sexes; as in Utopia, the younger people\nwait upon the elders; as in Christianopolis, science is imparted, or\nat least hinted at, by demonstration. When one subtracts what these\nother Utopian countries have contributed, very little indeed remains.\n\nBut we must not neglect to observe two significant passages. One of\nthem is the recognition of the part that invention might play in the\nideal commonwealth. The people of the City of the Sun have wagons that\nare driven by the wind, and boats \u201cwhich go over the waters without\nrowers or the force of the wind, but by a marvelous contrivance.\u201d There\nis a very clear anticipation of the mechanical improvements which began\nto multiply so rapidly in the eighteenth century. At the tale end of\nthe sea-captain\u2019s recital, the Grand Master exclaims: \u201cOh, if you knew\nwhat our astrologers say of the coming age, that has in it more history\nwithin a hundred years than all the world had in four thousand years\nbefore! Of the wonderful invention of printing and guns, and the use of\nthe magnet....\u201d With the mechanical arts in full development, labor in\nthe City of the Sun has become dignified: it is not the custom to keep\nslaves. Since everyone takes his part in the common work, there is not\nmore than four hours\u2019 work to be done per day. \u201cThey are rich because\nthey want nothing; poor because they possess nothing; and consequently\nthey are not slaves to circumstances, but circumstances serve them.\u201d\n\nThe other point upon which Campanella\u2019s observation is remarkably keen\nis his explanation of the relation of private property and the private\nhousehold to the commonwealth. Thus:\n\n\u201cThey say that all private property is acquired and improved for the\nreason that each one of us by himself has his own home and wife and\nchildren. From this self-love springs. For when we raise a son to\nriches and dignities, and leave an heir to much wealth, we become\neither ready to grasp at the property of the state, if in any case\nfear should be removed from the power which belongs to riches and\nrank; or avaricious, crafty, and hypocritical, if any is of slender\npurse, little strength, and mean ancestry. But when we have taken away\nself-love, there remains only love for the state.\u201d\n\nHow shall the common Utopia keep from being neglected through each\none\u2019s concern for his little private utopia?\n\nThis is the critical problem that our utopians have all to face;\nand Campanella loyally follows Plato in his solution. It is perhaps\ninevitable that each utopian\u2019s personal experience of life should\nenter into his solution, and overwhelmingly give it color; and here\nthe limitations of our utopians are plain. More and Andre\u00e6 are married\nmen, and they stand for the individual family. Plato and Campanella\nwere bachelors, and they proposed that men should live like monks or\nsoldiers. Perhaps these two camps are not so far away as they would\nseem. If we follow the exposition of that excellent anthropologist,\nProfessor Edward Westermarck, we shall be fairly well convinced, I\nbelieve, that marriage is a biological institution, and thorough\npromiscuity is, to say the least, an unusual form of mating. Plato\nperhaps recognized this when he left us in doubt as to whether a\ncommunity of wives would be practiced by his artisans and husbandmen.\nSo he perhaps paves the way for a solution by which the normal life\nfor the great majority of men would be marriage, with its individual\nconcerns and loyalties, whilst for the active, creative elements in\nthe community a less secluded form of mating would be practiced. The\npainter, Van Gogh, has given us a kernel to chew on when he says that\nthe sexual life of the artist must be either that of the monk or the\nsoldier, for otherwise he is distracted from his creative work.\n\nWe may leave this question in the air, as long as we realize that all\nour utopias rest upon our ability to discover some sort of a solution.\n\n\n2\n\nFrancis Bacon\u2019s New Atlantis is not a utopia in the sense that I\nhave explained our principle of selection in the preface to the\nbibliography. It is only a fragment, and not very good as fragments go;\nand it would drop out altogether from our survey were it not for the\nhugely over-rated reputation that Bacon has as a philosopher of natural\nscience--indeed, as _the_ philosopher after Aristotle.\n\nThe greater part of Bacon\u2019s ideas are anticipated and more amply\nexpressed by Andre\u00e6. When we have deleted Bacon\u2019s multitudinous prayers\nand exhortations, when we have disposed of his copious descriptions\nof jewels and velvets and satins and ceremonial regalia, we find that\nthe core of his commonwealth is Salomon\u2019s House, sometimes known as\nthe College of the Six Days\u2019 Works; which he describes as the noblest\nfoundation that ever was upon earth, and the lantern of the kingdom.\n\nThe purpose of this foundation is the \u201cknowledge of the causes and\nsecret motions of things; and the enlarging of the bounds of human\nempire, to the effecting of all things possible.\u201d The material\nresources of this foundation are manifold. It has laboratories dug into\nthe sides of hills, and observatories with towers half a mile high;\nit has great lakes of salt and fresh water which seem to anticipate\nthe marine laboratories we know today; and it has engines for setting\nthings in motion. Besides this, there are spacious houses where\nphysical demonstrations are made, and sanatoria where various novel\ncures are attempted; there are experimental agricultural stations,\ntoo, where grafts and crosses are tried. Add to this pharmaceutical\nlaboratories, industrial laboratories, and numerous houses devoted\nto such things as experiments with sounds, lights, perfumes, and\ntastes--which Bacon presents in a wild farrago without any regard to\nthe essential sciences to which the work he describes is related--and\none has a tally of the \u201criches of Salomon\u2019s House.\u201d\n\nTwelve fellows of the college travel into foreign lands to bring\nback books and abstracts, and reports on experiments and inventions.\nThree make a digest of experiments. Three collect the experiments of\nall the mechanical arts, and also of practices which are not brought\ninto the arts. Three try new experiments. Three devote themselves to\nclassifications; and another three, known as dowry men or benefactors,\nlook into the experiments of their fellows and cast about for means\nof applying them to human life and knowledge. Three fellows consult\nwith the whole body of scientific workers and plan new channels of\ninvestigation; and three, who are called interpreters of nature,\nattempt to raise the results of particular investigations into general\nobservations and axioms.\n\nIn telling all this, as in the rest of his New Atlantis, Bacon is\nincredibly childish and incoherent: he gives such a description of\nSalomon\u2019s House as a six-year-old schoolboy might give of a visit to\nthe Rockefeller Foundation. Beneath these maladroit interpretations,\nhowever, we see that Bacon had a grasp on some of the fundamentals of\nscientific research, and of the part that science might play in the\n\u201crelief of man\u2019s estate.\u201d It is nothing more than a hint, this New\nAtlantis; but a word to the wise is enough; and as we look about the\nmodern world we see that, in its material affairs at any rate, the\ngreat scientific institutes and foundations--the United States Bureau\nof Standards, for one--play a part not a little like that of the\nCollege of the Six Days\u2019 Works.\n\nCampanella with his dream of powerful mechanical inventions, in which\nhe had been anticipated by Leonardo, and Bacon with his sketch of\nscientific institutes--with these two utopians we stand at the entrance\nto the utopia of means; that is to say, the place in which all that\nmaterially contributes to the good life has been perfected. The earlier\nutopias were concerned to establish the things which men should aim\nfor in life. The utopias of the later Renascence took these aims for\ngranted and discussed how man\u2019s scope of action might be broadened. In\nthis the utopians only reflected the temper of their time; and did not\nattempt to remold it. As a result of our preoccupation with the means,\nwe in the Western World live in an inventor\u2019s paradise. Scientific\nknowledge and mechanical power we have to burn; more knowledge and more\npower than Bacon or Campanella could possibly have dreamed of. But\ntoday we face again the riddle that Plato, More, and Andre\u00e6 sought to\nanswer: what are men to do with their knowledge and power?\n\nAs we skip here and there through the Utopias of the next three\ncenturies, this question gets more deeply impregnated in our minds.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER SIX\n\n  How something happened in the eighteenth century which made men\n      \u201cfuriously to think,\u201d and how a whole group of utopias sprang\n      out of the upturned soil of industrialism.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER SIX\n\n\n1\n\nThere is a gap in the Utopian tradition between the seventeenth century\nand the nineteenth. Utopia, the place that must be built, faded into\nno-man\u2019s land, the spot to which one might escape; and the utopias of\nDenis Vairasse and Simon Berington and the other romancers of this\nin-between period are in the line of Robinson Crusoe rather than the\nRepublic.\n\nOne finds the clue to this lapse in Tiphaigne de la Roche\u2019s Giphantia,\na sketch of what was and what is and what will be, and in particular,\nan inquiry into the \u201cBabylonian\u201d mode of life. The author of Giphantia\ntells a parable about Sophia, the incarnation of Wisdom, who rejects\nthe offers of the spendthrift, the merchant, the soldier, and the\nstudent, and accepts the suit of a diffident fellow who had retired in\nsolitude to the country, to spend his days like a cultivated gentleman.\nOne remembers the way in which Montaigne spent his declining years;\none remembers Voltaire; and one sees how deeply the ideal of Robinson\nCrusoe--a cultivated Robinson Crusoe, surrounded with books and beyond\nthe reach of any king and court--colored the deepest aspirations of\nthis period. Rousseau, writing about the corrupting influence of the\narts and sciences, and Chateaubriand, seeking the noble savage in the\nAmerican wilderness and finding him in his own bosom--these men struck\nthe dominating note of the eighteenth century. In a society that was\nalready painfully artificial and \u201carranged\u201d the institutes of Lycurgus\nand Utopus must have seemed as repressive as those of Louis XIV. So\nalmost two centuries pass before we find any fresh regions to explore\nin Utopia.\n\n\n2\n\nThe Utopia of Sir Thomas More, and those of the later men of the\nRenascence, arose, as I have pointed out, from the contrast between the\npossibilities that lay open beyond the sea and the dismal conditions\nthat attended the breakdown of the town economy of the Middle Age.\nLike Plato\u2019s Republic, it attempted to face the difficult problem of\ntransition.\n\nIn the course of the next three centuries the adventure of exploring\nand ransacking strange countries loses its hold upon men\u2019s imagination;\nand a new type of activity becomes the center of interest. The conquest\nof alien countries and the lure of gold do not indeed die out with\nthis new interest; but they are subordinated to another type of\nconquest--that which man seeks to effect over nature. Here and there,\nparticularly in Great Britain, untrained men \u201cwith a practical turn\u201d\nbegin to busy themselves with improving the mechanical apparatus by\nwhich the day\u2019s labor is done. A retired barber, named Arkwright,\ninvents a spinning frame, a Scotchman named MacAdam discovers a new\nmethod of laying roads; and out of a hundred such inventions during\nthe late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries a new world comes\ninto existence--a world in which energy derived from coal and running\nwater takes the place of human energy; in which goods manipulated by\nmachinery take the place of goods woven or sawed or hammered by hand.\nWithin a hundred years the actual world and the idola were transformed.\n\nIn this new world of falling water, burning coal, and whirring\nmachinery, utopia was born again. It is easy to see why this should\nhave happened, and why about two-thirds of our utopias should have been\nwritten in the nineteenth century. The world was being visibly made\nover; and it was possible to conceive of a different order of things\nwithout escaping to the other side of the earth. There were political\nchanges, and the monarchic state was tempered by republicanism; there\nwere industrial changes, and two hungry mouths were born where one\ncould feed before; and there were social changes--the strata of society\nshifted and \u201cfaulted,\u201d and men who in an earlier period would have been\ndoomed to a dull and ignominious round, perhaps, took a place alongside\nthose whom inheritance had given all the privileges of riches and\nbreeding.\n\nIn contrast to all these fresh possibilities were the dismal realities\nwhich were easily enough perceived by people who stood outside this\nnew order, or who by temperament revolted against the indignities\nand repressions and vilenesses that accompanied it. It is not my\nparticular business here to deal with the facts of history; but unless\none understands the facts of history, the utopias which I am about\nto present lose a good part of their meaning. Those machines whose\noutput was so great that all men might be clothed; those new methods of\nagriculture and new agricultural implements, which promised crops so\nbig that all men might be fed--the very instruments that were to give\nthe whole community the physical basis of a good life turned out, for\nthe vast majority of people who possessed neither capital nor land, to\nbe nothing short of instruments of torture.\n\nI do not speak too harshly of the early industrial age; it is\nimpossible to speak too harshly. Take the trouble to read Robert Owen\u2019s\n\u201cEssay on the Formation of Character\u201d (Manchester: 1837) and learn what\nconditions were like in a model factory run by an enlightened employer:\nit is a picture of unmitigated brutality. One must go back to the\nblackest periods of ancient slavery for a parallel, if indeed one would\nfind it, for the Pyramids that were built under the lash have a certain\ngrandeur and permanence which justify their existence, whilst the goods\nwhich were produced in Yorkshire through the maimed bodies of pauper\nchildren proved to be as impermanent as the lives that were sacrificed\nin making them.\n\nThose who were inside this new order--the Gradgrinds and Bounderbys\nwhom Dickens pictures in \u201cHard Times\u201d--sought to realize their utopia\nof the Iron Age on earth. When we are through with the genuine utopians\nwe shall examine the idola by which all the \u201cpractical\u201d men of the\nnineteenth century, Marx as well as Macaulay, patterned their behavior.\nThose who stood out against this new order were not so much opposed to\nthe new methods as to the purposes for which they were being used: they\nfelt that an orderly conquest of Nature had turned into a wild scramble\nfor loot, and that all the goods industrialism promised were being\nlost, for the benefit of a few aggressive and unsocialized individuals.\nWith the host of critics and interpreters and reformers that arose\nin the nineteenth century we shall have a little reckoning to make\npresently: those who concern us here however belong to the stock of\nPlato, More, and Andre\u00e6, in that they attempted to see society as a\nwhole, and to protect a new order which would be basically sound as\nwell as superficially improved. Yet with the exception of the utopias\nwhich revolted against industrialism these nineteenth century essays\nare partial and one-sided; for they tend to magnify the importance of\nthe industrial order as much as Gradgrind and Bounderby did, and in\ndoing this they lose sight of the whole life of man. These industrial\nutopias are no longer concerned with values but with means; they are\nall instrumentalist. I doubt whether an intelligent peasant in India or\nChina would get out of the whole batch of these utopias a single idea\nwhich would have any bearing on the life that he has experienced--so\nlittle of human significance remains when the problems of mechanical\nand political organization have been disposed of!\n\nOne symptom of this lack of individuality, this lack of what, in the\nold-fashioned sense used to be called a philosophy, is the fact that\nwe can treat all these industrial utopias in groups. The first of\nthese group-utopias I shall call, perhaps somewhat arbitrarily, the\nAssociationists.\n\n\n3\n\nAmong the Associationists, the most influential utopian is Charles\nFran\u00e7ois Marie Fourier. He was a prolific and incoherent writer, and\nhis Utopia, if the truth be told, exists as disjecta membra rather than\nas a single work; but in his case I make an exception to the criterion\nof selection; because in every other respect he has a claim upon our\nattention. This Fourier was a dry little French commercial traveller,\nwhose personal fortune was lost in the French revolution and whose\nhopes for founding a real eutopia were blasted by the July revolution\nof 1830. Again and again he transferred himself from one line of goods\nto another in order to increase the area of the territory he covered\nand learn more of the workings of society; and so in his writings a\nwealth of concrete detail goes hand in hand with personal crotchets\nand the opinionativeness which arises almost inevitably out of an\nundisciplined solitude. What follows is a distillation of Fourier\u2019s\nthought, with the lees and orts left in the bottom of the flask.\n\nFourier differs largely from the early utopians in that he is concerned\nfirst of all not with modifying human nature but with finding out what\nit actually is. His utopia is to be based upon an understanding of\nman\u2019s actual physical and mental makeup, and its institutions are to\nbe such as will permit man\u2019s original nature to function freely. The\nmotive which draws his community together is attraction; the power\nwhich sets his institutions going is \u201cthe passions.\u201d Under the head of\npassions--the original biological equipment--Fourier gives a list of\ntendencies which corresponds roughly with the modern psychologist\u2019s\nlist of instincts.\n\nFourier takes these passions as \u201cgiven\u201d; his utopia is not designed to\n\u201ceffect any change in our passions ... their direction will be changed\nwithout changing their nature.\u201d As Brisbane says in his Introduction to\nFourier\u2019s philosophy, social institutions are to these passional forces\nwhat machinery is to material forces. A good community, according to\nFourier, is one which will bring all these passions into play, in their\ncomplex actions and interactions.\n\nAs in the Republic, the ideal behind Fourier\u2019s utopia is harmony;\nfor man has a threefold destiny; namely, \u201can industrial destiny, to\nharmonize the material world; a social destiny, to harmonize the\npassional or moral world; and an intellectual destiny, to discover\nthe laws of universal order and harmony.\u201d What was at fault with\nmodern civilized societies was that they were incomplete, and in\ntheir functioning they created a social dissonance. To overcome this,\nsays Fourier, men must unite into harmonious associations which will\ngive play to all their activities, and which, by erecting common\ninstitutions, will do away with the waste arising in the individual\u2019s\nattempts to do for himself all the things which would be done by a\ncomplete community.\n\nFor this perfect association Fourier provides minute plans and tables;\nbut the general plan can be outlined with brevity.\n\nFirst of all, Fourier, too, goes back to the valley section. The\ninitial nucleus of his utopia is to consist of a company of 1,500\nor 1,600 persons, owning a good stretch of land comprising at least\na square league. Since this experimental phalanx, as Fourier called\nit, would have to stand alone, and without the support of neighboring\nphalanxes, there will in consequence of this isolation be many gaps\nin \u201cattraction,\u201d and \u201cmany passional calms to dread in its workings.\u201d\nTo overcome this, Fourier insists that it is necessary to locate the\nphalanx on soil fit for a variety of functions. \u201cA flat country, such\nas Antwerp, Leipsic, Orleans, would be totally unsuitable ... owing\nto the uniformity of land surface. It will therefore be necessary to\nselect a diversified region, like the surroundings of Lausanne, or at\nthe very least, a fine valley, provided with a stream of water and a\nforest, like the valley of Brussel or of Halle.\u201d\n\nThis domain would be laid out in fields, orchards, vineyards, and so\nforth, according to the nature of the soil and industrial requirements.\nBy devotion to horticulture and arboriculture, Fourier figures, an\nintensive development would supply abundantly the needs of the colony.\nThe main economic occupation of the phalanx would be agricultural--this\nis perhaps the great distinction between Fourier and later\nUtopians--but all the arts would be practiced within the phalanstery,\nsince otherwise the association would be incomplete.\n\nThe principle of the association is concretely embodied in a vast\nedifice in the center of the domain: \u201ca palace complete in all its\nappointments serving as the residence of the associates. In this palace\nthere are three wings, corresponding to the Material, the Social, and\nthe Intellectual domains. In one wing are the workshops and halls of\nindustry. In another are the library, the scientific collections,\nmuseums, artists\u2019 studios, and the like. In the center, devoted to\nthe social element, are banquet halls, a hall of reception, and grand\nsalons. At one end of the palace is a Temple of the Material Harmonies,\ndevoted to singing, music, poetry, dancing, gymnastics, painting, and\nso forth. At the other end is the Temple of Unityism, to celebrate with\nappropriate rites man\u2019s unity with the universe. On the summit there is\nan observatory with telegraph and signal tower, for communication with\nother phalanxes.\n\nThe phalanx men are associationists; but it follows from Fourier\u2019s\ntheory of the passions that they have private interests as well as\npublic ones; and these private interests are permitted to flourish\nas long as they do not interfere with social solidarity. Thus they\navoid the waste inherent in private housekeeping by having public\nkitchens, where, incidentally, the children are trained from an early\nage at cooking, as they are today in one or two experimental schools:\nnevertheless it is possible to dine in solitude as well as in company.\nBy the same token, every member of the phalanx is guaranteed a minimum\nof food, clothing, lodging, and even amusements without respect to\nwork; at the same time, private property is sanctioned, and each\nmember extracts from the common store a dividend in proportion to the\namount of stock he holds in the association. This dividend, it must be\nqualified, is considerably reduced by the fact that a system of profit\nsharing replaces the pure wage system. There is thus a sort of balance\nbetween private self-seeking and the maintenance of the public good.\n\nIn order to manufacture goods economically, large scale production\nis introduced wherever possible, and the division of labor is forced\nto its ultimate limits. Fourier takes account of the resulting\nmonotony, however, and suggests that the monotony be corrected by\nhaving recourse to changing tasks and occupations from time to time.\nIn commercial exchange, the phalanx acts as a unit; it constitutes a\ngreat self-governing body which traffics in surplus goods with similar\nassociations, without any middleman, in something of the manner,\nperhaps, that the Co-operative Wholesale Societies do today.\n\nBy abolishing the individual household, the phalanx gives a new\nfreedom to women; and Fourier does not see how it is possible to\nmaintain the system of monogamic proprietorship once women have a free\nchoice of mates. So the women of the phalanx are not intellectual\nnonentities; and since they no longer preside over the individual home,\nthey help run the whole community. Is it necessary to add the common\nnurseries, the common schools, the informal education of the children,\nand the number of other things which follow from this emancipation?\n\nPerhaps one of the most remarkable characteristics of this utopia is\nits utilization of a moral equivalent for war, long before Professor\nWilliam James invented the phrase. One of the great functions of the\nphalanx is the assemblage of productive armies even as \u201ccivilization\u201d\nassembles destructive ones. There is a fine passage in which Fourier\npictures an industrial army of golden youths and maidens, \u201cinstead of\ndevastating thirty provinces in a campaign, these armies will have\nspanned thirty rivers with bridges, re-wooded thirty barren mountains,\ndug thirty trenches for irrigation, and drained thirty marshes.\u201d It is\nfor lack of such industrial armies, says Fourier, that civilization is\nunable to produce anything great.\n\n\n4\n\nWhat strikes us when we put together the fragments of Fourier\u2019s\nutopia--as one might put together a jigsaw puzzle--is the fact that he\nfaces the variety and inequality of human nature. Instead of erecting\na standard for men to live up to, and rejecting mankind as unfit for\nutopia because the standard is far beyond its height, the standard\nitself is founded upon the utmost capacity which a community might be\nable to exhibit. Fourier meets human nature half-way: he endeavors to\nproject a society which will give regular channels to all its divergent\nimpulses, and prevent them from spilling unsocially all over the\nlandscape. In his statement of this aim there are plenty of weaknesses\nand absurdities; and I confess that it is hard to take this pathetic\nlittle man seriously; but when one has grappled with Fourier\u2019s thought\none discovers that there is something to take.\n\nFourier died without persuading anyone to give a trial to his scheme of\nassociation; and yet his work was not without its practical influence.\nThe Brook Farm experiment in America was a fumbling attempt to plant\na phalanstery without paying any attention to the conditions which\nFourier would have rigorously imposed; and the \u201cfamilistere\u201d of the\ngreat steel works of Godin at Guise, in France, is another direct\nresult of Fourier\u2019s inspiration. He remains, I believe, the first man\nwho had a plan for colonizing the wilderness of industrial barbarism\nthat existed at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and redeeming\nthat wilderness to civilization.\n\n\n5\n\nThe name of Robert Owen is usually associated with utopianism; but his\nwork belongs more to the \u201creal\u201d world than to the idola of utopia;\nand I pass over him with the briefest mention, for his projects for a\nmodel industrial town have more of the flavor of a poor colony than\nthat of a productive human society. Let us grant him good intentions,\norganizing ability, and moral fervor: without doubt he is a noble\nfigure, even when his attitude is strained and his tone strident. The\nseries of essays he wrote on love and marriage are marked by fine\nsympathy and common sense; and it is to be regretted that they are not\nas widely known as his plans for a new moral world. If this little note\ncan repair the neglect, I have done Owen ample justice: as an active\nfigure in English and American public life he is properly a subject for\nthe social historian. With Owen I must also dismiss John Ruskin, who\nbegan in the last quarter of the nineteenth century to develop plans\nfor a \u201cGuild of St. George.\u201d This guild was to form a little island\nof honest labor and sound education in the midst of the turbid sea of\nindustrialism; but it did not embrace the whole of society, and it was\nutopian only in the sense that the Oneida Community, let us say, was\nutopian. While they are full of pregnant suggestions, the plans for the\nGuild are as fragmentary as the New Atlantis.\n\n\n6\n\nOne of the neglected utopias of the mid-nineteenth century is that of\nJames Buckingham.\n\nJames Buckingham was one of those erratic men of affairs which the\nfertile soil of British individualism produces, and which hard British\ncommon sense persistently ignores. Like Owen, Buckingham was acquainted\nwith industrial and commercial affairs from the inside: he travelled\nwidely and wrote upon various matters with that copious, amateurish\ndogmatism and spirit which marks him, perhaps, as the philistine\ncounterpart of John Ruskin. If the utopias of the past express the\nideals of the soldier, the farmer, and the artisan, the community\nwhich Buckingham projected represents the ideal of the bourgeoisie.\nBuckingham\u2019s Victoria is the ideal aspect of that Coketown which in a\nlater chapter we shall attempt to describe.\n\nWe talk loosely of the individualism of the nineteenth century; but\nin reality it was a period that was thriving with associations.\nThe scope of joint stock companies and philanthropic societies had\nimmeasurably widened. Along with the Mudfog Association, \u201cfor the\nadvancement of everything,\u201d which Dickens satirized, there sprang up\na hundred different societies for performing some special function in\nthe industrial system or realizing some particular purpose in society.\nBuckingham gives us a picture of his contemporaries which is also a\ncriticism:\n\n\u201cWe have the government of the country itself, passing acts of\nparliament for the better drainage of towns, and a more ample supply\nof water and air for ventilation.... Hence, too, arise associations of\nnoblemen and others for building model lodging houses for the labouring\nclasses; associations for improving the dwellings of the poor;\nsocieties for providing baths and bath houses for families unable to\nprocure such conveniences for themselves; associations for establishing\nsuburban villages for the working classes, and to get them at night at\nleast out of the crowded haunts and vicious atmosphere of the towns.\nAnd hence we have Temperance Societies, Tract Societies, Home Missions,\nAsylums for Repentant Magdalens, Homes for Seaman out of Employ, and\nHouses of Refuge for the Destitute, with soup kitchens and other modes\nof temporary relief....\u201d\n\nWhat does this all come to? Let Buckingham answer:\n\n\u201cThey are, after all, mere palliatives, and do not reach the seat of\nthe disease.... This can only be done by uniting the disjointed efforts\nof all these well-meaning but partially curative bodies into one, in\norder to achieve, by their union of means, influence, and example, the\nerection of a \u201cModel Society,\u201d with its model farms, model pastures,\nmodel mines, model manufactures, model town, model schools, model\nworkshops, model kitchens, model libraries, and places of recreation,\nenjoyment, and instruction; all of which could be united in one new\nAssociation.\u201d\n\nWithout inquiring too closely into what a model pasture may be, we may\nadmit that the notion behind Buckingham\u2019s proposal was not unsound. The\nindustrial society of his day was in an inchoate, indeed in a chaotic\nstate. In order to sift out the necessary institutions and put them on\na firm basis, it was the better part of wisdom to start anew on a fresh\narea of land and attempt to plan the development of the community as a\nwhole. It is true that in this proposal of Buckingham\u2019s there is none\nof Fourier\u2019s brilliant intuitions of a true social order, and none of\nRuskin\u2019s critical inquiry into what composed a good life: Buckingham\ntook contemporary values for granted. What he sought to do was to\nrealize these values completely, and in orderly fashion. Here are the\nelements of his proposal.\n\nThere is to be formed a model town association, with a limited\nliability, for the purpose of building a new town called Victoria. The\ntown is to contain every improvement in \u201cposition, plan, drainage,\nventilation, architecture, supply of water, light, and every other\nelegance and convenience.\u201d Its size is to be about a mile square and\nthe number of inhabitants is not to exceed 10,000. A suitable variety\nof manufactures and handicraft trades is to be established near the\nedge of the town; and the town itself is to be surrounded by farm land\n10,000 acres broad. All of the lands, houses, factories, and materials\nare to be the property of the company, and not of any individual; and\nthis property is to be held for the benefit of all in proportion as\ntheir shares entitle them. No person is to be a member of the company\nor an inhabitant of the town except one who is a bona fide shareholder\nto the extent of at least twenty pounds, and who is ready to subscribe\nto a drastic series of blue laws which, while permitting freedom in\nreligious worship and preventing child labor, do away with liquor,\ndrugs, and even tobacco.\n\nIn addition to these provisions there are to be common laundries,\nkitchens, refectories, and nurseries; and medical advice is to be given\nfree, at home or in the hospital, as in the army and navy. Education is\nto be undertaken by the community. Justice, it should be noted by those\nwho are acquainted with an experiment which has recently been started\nin New York, is to be administered by competent arbitrators under a\nwritten code of laws, without the expense, delay, and uncertainty\nof ordinary legal proceedings. All members are to sign declarations\naccepting arbitration and waiving other legal proceedings against\nmembers of the company.\n\nAll these affairs, especially the manner in which the town is to\nbe built, are worked out in considerable detail; thus the size and\ncharacter of the houses are set forth on the plan, and it is provided\nthat each workingman is to occupy at least one entire and separate\nroom for himself; whilst each married couple without children gets\ntwo rooms, and each family in which there are children is to occupy\nat least three rooms for domestic purposes. I have set down all these\ndetails baldly because the plan itself is a bald one; and no amount\nof fine writing will embellish it. Buckingham\u2019s society is not based\nupon a thoroughgoing criticism of human institutions: the ends for\nwhich this society exists are doubtless those which were held good\nand proper by the Macaulays and the Martineaus. What is interesting\nin Buckingham\u2019s utopia is the definite plans and specifications,\naccompanied by drawings; for this is surely one of the first attempts\nto put a problem in social engineering on a basis from which an\nengineer or an architect could work.\n\nBuckingham thought that, given a successful model town, the rest of\nEngland might in time be colonized by the surplus population, and\nthus the old centers of black industry would be wiped out. Nor was\nBuckingham altogether deceived. His utopia was a limited one, but out\nof his limitations has come success. In 1848 this utopia was a chimera;\nin 1898, Mr. Ebenezer Howard reconstructed it and set it forth in a\npersuasive little book called Tomorrow, and as a direct result of\nthe plans advocated by Mr. Howard, a flourishing garden city called\nLetchworth has come into existence; which in turn has propagated\nanother garden city, called Wellwyn; and at the same time has, by\nexample, paved the way for numerous garden villages and garden suburbs\nin various parts of Europe and in America.\n\nWith this mid-Victorian theorist, we pass over from a pre-scientific\nmethod of thinking to one which sacrifices the artistic imagination to\na realistic grasp of the facts; and in this passage something is gained\nand something is lost. Buckingham gains by confining his proposals to\nwhat is immediately practicable. He loses by not having the imaginative\nenergy to criticize the ways, means, and ends that are sanctioned by\ncurrent practise. If utopia begins with Plato\u2019s glorious dream of an\norganic community, the image of the just man made perfect, it cannot\nend with Buckingham\u2019s invention of a shell. Nevertheless, through the\nnineteenth century the superficial utopians, the shell-builders, are\ndominant; and we must continue to examine them.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER SEVEN\n\n  How some Utopians have thought that a good community rested at\n      bottom on the right division and use of land; and what sort\n      of communities these land-animals projected.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER SEVEN\n\n\n1\n\nBefore the Industrial Revolution upset the balance of social power,\nthere were little villages in England where, on a limited scale and to\nno very grand purpose, a quiet and placid and fairly jolly existence\nmust have been the rule of things. These villages were those in which\nthe land was either held in freehold by small proprietors, or where\nthere still remained for the use of each inhabitant certain common\npastures and wastes. Under this regime there was a fair degree of\nprosperity with which only the wind and the weather and war could\ninterfere. Something of the savor of this life Mr. W.\u00a0H. Hudson finely\nconveys in his A Traveller in Little Things; and a century ago Cobbett\nmade a series of excellent snapshots in his Rural Rides.\n\nWhen the medi\u00e6val order broke down the great proprietors began to\nseize this common land; and during the eighteenth century, under the\nincentive of big-scale scientific agriculture, the seizure went on at a\nmerry pace. The peasant without land was forced to migrate to the new\ntowns, as the Hammonds have pictured in their graphic work on the Town\nLaborer; and the labor of the peasant and his family fed the machines\nwhich the Watts and Arkwrights were developing in the eighteenth\ncentury. Industrial progress and social poverty went hand in hand. The\nperiod before the Industrial Revolution seemed in comparison a real\nutopia; and the key to this utopia was the land.\n\nThe importance of land in the constitution of civil society was\nemphasized by the Diggers of Cromwell\u2019s time; one of them, Gerard\nWinstanley, wrote a minor utopia to prove that the land should be held\nin common; and this view was reinforced--without the communism--in a\npurely political utopia called Oceana by James Harrington, who lived\nduring the same period. Harrington advocated such a distribution of\nland that the landed gentry should be the leaders, and the commonalty\nshould have the preponderance of power.\n\nOut of all the modern utopias with which we have to reckon there are\ntwo, in particular, in which the common possession of land is the\nfoundation of every other institution. These are Spensonia and A Visit\nto Freeland.\n\n\n2\n\nThe early part of the nineteenth century is remarkable for the fact\nthat men of common stock, usually self-educated, began to apply their\nwits to improving the conditions of the class to which they belonged;\nand in particular there was in London a peasant named William Cobbett,\na tailor named Francis Place, and a stationer named Thomas Spence who\ndevoted a good part of what remained over from their working days to\nplans for bettering man\u2019s estate.\n\nThomas Spence had a shop in High Holborn from which he published\nlittle pamphlets of rough philosophy, called Pig\u2019s Meat; in 1795 he\nissued A Description of Spensonia, which was followed in 1801 by The\nConstitution of Spensonia: A Country in Fairyland situated between\nUtopia and Oceana; brought from thence by Captain Swallow. Spence\u2019s\ntitle to have written a complete utopia rests upon the fact that\nhe proposes a return to an environment which had once been, in its\nfashion, complete.\n\nSpensonia begins with a parable about a father who had a number of\nsons, who built them a ship for traffic, and who provided that the\nprofits of the enterprise were to be shared in common. This ship is\nwrecked upon an island; and the sons quickly awake to the conclusion\nthat if \u201cthey did not apply the Marine Constitution given them by\ntheir father to their landed property, they would soon experience\ninexpressible inconveniences. They therefore declared the property of\nthe island to be the property of them all collectively, in the same\nmanner as the ship had been, and that they ought to share the profits\nthereof in the same way. The island they named Spensonia, after the\nship which their father had given them. They next chose officers to\nmark out such portions of the land, as every person or family desired\nto occupy, for which they were to receive for the use of the public a\ncertain rent according to its value. This rent was applied to public\nuses or divided among themselves as they thought proper. But in order\nto keep up the remembrance of their rights, they decreed that they\nshould never fail to share at rent-time, an equal dividend, though ever\nso small, and though the public demands should be ever so urgent....\nAs they had determined, when seeing that every ship they should build\nand man, should ... be the property of the crew, so, in conformity\ntherewith, they decreed that every district or parish which they\nshould people, should be the property of the inhabitants, and the\nrent and police of the same at their disposal.... A National Assembly\nor Congress consisting of delegates from all the parishes takes care\nof the national concerns, and defrays the expenses of the state and\nmatters of common utility, by a pound rate from each parish without any\nother tax.\u201d\n\nWhat is a parish and what is its work? Look around the English\ncountryside and see.\n\nA parish, to begin with, is a \u201ccompact portion of the country,\ndesignedly not too large that it may the more easily be managed by the\ninhabitants with respect to its revenues and the police.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe parishes build and repair houses, make roads, plant hedges and\ntrees, and in a word do all the business of a landlord.... A parish\nhas many heads to contrive what ought to be done. Instead of debating\nabout mending the state, ... (for ours needs no mending) we employ\nour ingenuity nearer home, and the result of the debates are in every\nparish, how we shall work such a mine, make such a river navigable,\ndrain such a fen, or improve such a waste. These things we are all\nimmediately interested in, and have each a vote in executing.\u201d\n\nThere is a rough, homespun quality about this utopia, and it needs\na visit to the English villages of the New Forest or the Chiltern\nHills, where some of the common lands have been kept, to see what a\nrural utopia would be like if it could keep itself free from invaders\nwho sought to live off the fat of the land without contributing their\nlabor. Spence was not altogether blind to the necessity of keeping\nwatch over this constitution of equality; and he places his utopia in\nthe care of two guardian angels--Voting by Ballot and the Universal\nUse of Arms--two angels which look less formidable and potent in the\ntwentieth century than they did in the first decade of the nineteenth,\nwhen the first had still to be tried, and when the second was not\ncomplicated by the invention of machine guns and poison gases.\n\nAt the bottom of Spence\u2019s Utopia, however, lies the conviction which he\nshares with Plato and all the other genuine utopians; namely, that in\nThoreau\u2019s words less is accomplished by the thousands who are hacking\nat the branches of evil than by one who is striking at the root.\nSpence, it must be remembered, wrote in the thick of the agitation\nfor parliamentary reform which was the keynote of so much nineteenth\ncentury activity--the chartist movement, parliamentary socialism, and\nthe like, being so many rainbows in the bubble of political effort\nwhich burst with such a bang when the Great War broke out. Spence saw\nthe futility of these superficial demands. He said:\n\n\u201cThousands of abortive schemes are daily proposed for redressing\ngrievances and mending the constitution, whereas, the shoes were so\nill-made at first, and so worn, rotten, and patched already, that\nthey are not worth the trouble or expense, but ought to be thrown\nto the dunghill; and a new pair should be made, neat, tight, and\neasy as for the foot of one that loves freedom and ease. Then would\nyour controversies about this and the other way of cobbling, that\ncontinually agitate you, be done away; and you would walk along the\nrugged and dirty path of life easy and dry-shod.\u201d\n\n\n3\n\nThe next utopia, Freeland, marks a transition between the utopia in\nwhich the land alone is held by the community and that in which land\nand capital and all the machinery of production belong to a national\nstate.\n\nThe writer of this utopia was an Austrian economist, Theodor Hertzka;\nand he first published his view in considerable detail, with reference\nto current economic doctrines, in a book called Freeland: A Social\nAnticipation. He condensed these doctrines in another book called A\nVisit to Freeland, or the new Paradise Regained, an attempt to picture\nhis freeman\u2019s commonwealth in action.\n\nThese books formed the center of a whirlwind of agitation; a magazine\nsprang up; societies were organized in various cities in Europe and\nAmerica; and a definite attempt was made to colonize a certain section\nof Africa, selected by Hertzka; an attempt which, alas! met with speedy\nfailure as a result of the obtuseness and international jealousy of\nvarious colonial officials. The first book was published in 1889; and\nall this happened in the early nineties. Perhaps the only practical\neffect of it was--and this is mere conjecture--to turn the thoughts\nof certain Zionists, like Israel Zangwill, from establishing Zion in\nJerusalem to building it up again in some more suitable region in the\nheart of Africa.\n\nFreeland may be described as an individualist Utopia on a social\nfoundation. Hertzka was filled with sympathy and admiration for the\ndoctrines that Adam Smith set forth in The Wealth of Nations; and he\ndesired to realize a society in which the maximum amount of individual\nfreedom and initiative would prevail, especially in industrial\nenterprises. This leads to a paradox; namely, that in order to ensure\nfreedom it is impossible to practise laissez faire; for the effect of\nlaissez faire is to permit accidental aggregations of wealth and power\nto threaten the freedom that less fortunate individuals seek to enjoy.\nSo far from being an anarchist utopia, Freeland is a co-operative\ncommonwealth in which the State acts as an interested party in the\nproduction and distribution of goods. This differs from socialism in\nname; and it differed from the practical socialist agitation of the\ntime in that it relied, not upon turning over established institutions\nin Europe, but in turning over a new leaf in the Kenia Highlands of\nAfrica; but Hertzka\u2019s \u201cindividualism\u201d comes to almost the same thing.\n\n\n4\n\nA visit to Freeland teaches us little about the arts of social life or\nthe constitution of a good society. What we can learn is one of the\nmethods by which--on hypothesis anyway--the industrial mechanism might\nbe controlled.\n\nIn Freeland there are five fundamental laws; and of these the first is\nthe most important; namely, that:\n\nEvery inhabitant has an equal right to the common land and to the means\nof production which are furnished by the state.\n\nThe other fundamental laws have to do with the support of women and\nchildren, old men, and those otherwise unfit to work, all of whom\nhave the right of maintenance, corresponding to the amount of credit\nbelonging to the state; with the provision of universal suffrage for\nall above twenty-five years of age; and with the establishment of\nindependent legislative and executive branches of the government.\n\nLet us follow the visitor to Freeland as he makes his first\nexplorations in Edendale, its principal city, and learns how affairs\nare conducted. If this is an individualist utopia it is not by any\nmeans free from the services of a bureaucracy; for first of all the\nvisitor turns to the Central Statistical Office, where records are kept\nof the occupations that are open and the amount of pay offered by each.\n\u201cEvery inhabitant of Freeland,\u201d our visitor finds, \u201chas the right to\nbecome a member of any business he pleases. One has only to present\noneself for this purpose; for the managers only decide upon the manner\nin which the members are to be employed, and not on the membership\nitself.\u201d In practice, the number of individuals with private businesses\nand partnerships seems to be limited, for big companies not merely\noperate factories but provide restaurant service, build houses, and\neven supply domestic service to private individuals and households.\n\n(The visitor has his boots blacked by one of these associated menials,\nand his hostess explains how the services of a caterer and a valet may\nbe obtained by calling up a central distributing agency.)\n\nThe sole condition upon which a person or company is allowed to engage\nin business is that the public be kept informed of all business\ntransactions. \u201cThe companies are therefore obliged to conduct their\nbook-keeping openly. The prices at which goods are bought and sold,\nthe net profits and the number of workmen, must be communicated at\nintervals which are fixed according to the judgment of the central\noffice.\u201d\n\nObserve that Hertzka reckons with the fact that in an industrial\nsociety, access to machinery is just as important as access to the\nland, since, in a manner of speaking, all our modern activities,\neven agriculture, are parasitic upon machinery. Hence the collection\nand distribution of capital is managed in the interests of the whole\ncommunity; the first being taken care of by a yearly tax, which\nobviates the need--and perhaps the possibility--of individual savings,\nwhilst the capital is distributed without interest to the companies\nthat make application for it. The community pays for the plant through\nthe added charge which is laid on consumers; the credit advanced is\ncancelled out through production. This arrangement does away with the\nstanding charge for capital which is maintained under present day\nproduction for profit even after the original capital has been paid\noff in dividends; and above all, it does away with the practice of\ncapitalizing increased returns in such a way as to enlarge the amount\nof the standing charge for capital. The social use of capital to\nadvance production, rather than to provide fixed incomes for a rentier\nclass, is recognized in Freeland.\n\nSince our visitor is an engineer, he turns to a plant devoted to the\nmanufacture of railway equipment; and notes that it is run under the\nfollowing statutes.\n\n1. Everyone is free to join the first Edendale Engine and Railway\nManufacturing Co., even if he also belongs to other companies. Everyone\nis also permitted to leave the company whenever he chooses. The board\nof management decides in what branch of the works the members shall be\nemployed.\n\n2. Every member is entitled to an amount of the net proceeds of the\ncompany corresponding to the quantity of work which is done.\n\n3. The amount of work is calculated according to the number of hours,\nto which two per cent. is added to that of the older members, and ten\nper cent. to foremen, and ten per cent. for night work.\n\n4. The engineers are paid as if working from ten to fifteen hours,\naccording to ability. The value of the manager is estimated in the\ngeneral assembly.\n\n5. Out of the company\u2019s profits a deduction is first made towards\nrepayment of capital, and after this the tax to the state is deducted.\nThe remainder is divided among members.\n\n6. If the company is dissolved or liquidated, the members are\nresponsible in proportion to the amount of profit which they get\nfrom revenues of the company, and this responsibility for the amount\nwhich is still pledged is proportionately laid upon new members. When\na member leaves the company, his responsibility for debt which has\nalready been contracted is not extinguished. In case of dissolution,\nliquidation, or sale, this responsibility corresponds to the claim of\nthe responsible member to the means of the company which are in hand,\nor to his share in what is sold.\n\n7. The principal judicial body of the company is the general assembly\nin which every member has the same right to speak and exercise the\nsame active and passive right of choice. The general assembly makes\nits determination by simply counting the majority of votes. A majority\nof three quarters is necessary for changing the statutes and for a\ndissolution or liquidation of the company.\n\n8. The general assembly practises its right either directly or by means\nof chosen officials, who are answerable to it for their actions.\n\n9. The business of the society is managed by a directorate of three\nmembers who hold office at the will of the general assembly. The\nsubordinate functionaries are chosen by the managers.\n\n10. The general assembly selects every year a committee of inspection\nwhich consists of five members. This body has to control and make a\nreport upon the books and the manner in which the company is conducted.\n\nNow, as a member of the company, our visitor would have the amount he\nhas earned credited to him at a Central Bank, which keeps his accounts\nand sends him an abstract every week; and through this bank he would\nmake the larger part of his disbursements. The products of the company,\nmoreover, are valued, stored, and sold by a Central Warehouse, in much\nthe same fashion that under the present regime a manufacturer\u2019s whole\noutput may be disposed of through a big department store or a mail\norder house.\n\nLet us now sum this up. The collection and disposition of capital\nbelongs to the community; and the total capital available for\nfurther production each year is based directly upon the productive\ncapacities of the community, without the waste and leakage that arises\nin present-day society though what Mr. Thorstein Veblen calls the\nconspicuous waste--the futile expenditures--of the leisured classes.\nThat this collection of a capital tax upon income would be any more\ndifficult than the present corporation tax or private income tax,\nwhich is now dissipated to the extent of some 90 per cent. or so upon\narmies and navies, is seriously to be doubted. In addition to this, the\nprocess of open book-keeping enables the Central Bank and the Central\nWarehouse to have an accurate knowledge of potential production, and\nthus there exists an accurate basis for apportioning credit. At the\nsame time the value of commodities comes by this means to have a direct\nrelation to the costs of production rather than to what the traffic\nwill bear.\n\nOn all these heads the trained economist will doubtless have many\npoints to contest; but in their broad outlines there is no abrupt\ndeparture from current practise in any of these items, and not much\nreason, perhaps, why they should not be more thoroughly instituted.\n\nWith the various ramifications of Edendale industry and corporate\nfinance it is not my business to deal; we have gone far enough to see\nthat very little indeed remains when the question of means has been\ngone into.\n\nThe chief good that Freeland seems to offer is freedom in industrial\nenterprise. An association of men can get land and capital on demand,\nand devote themselves to either agriculture or manufacturing industry;\nand the risk of failure is minimized by a complete knowledge of the\nprobable demand and probable supply calculated by the statistical\nbureau. Failing an outlet for industry through association, there\nremains the land itself, for individual cultivation. \u201cEvery family in\nFreeland dwells in its own house, and every house is surrounded by its\ngreat garden, a thousand square meters in extent. These houses are the\nprivate property of the inhabitants, and serve, like the gardens, for\nprivate use. The inhabitants of Freeland do not, as a rule, recognize\nany kind of ownership of land; they rather go upon the principle that\nthe land must be put in everyone\u2019s hands to do with what he chooses.\nThis, in the most literal and wide sense of the word, means that every\ninhabitant of Freeland can cultivate every piece of land whenever he\npleases. But this only relates to the land which is set apart for\ncultivation, and not that set apart for living upon.... The inhabitants\nof Freeland have agreed, with regard to the size and disposition\nof the land, serving for the creation of a dwelling house, to form\nregulations, and a kind of building court ... which has to determine\nwhat ground is and what is not to be built upon, parcels out the land\nfor building, sees to the laying out of streets, canals, and the like,\nand especially takes care that not more than one building is erected\nupon one building allotment.\u201d\n\n\n5\n\n\nWhat sort of life arises out of this kind of industrial association,\nthese provisions for the common use of machinery and land? It is all\nrather dry and colorless, a sort of picture postcard view of the\nPromised Land.\n\nWe are told that there are a great number of public buildings in\nEdendale--an administrative palace, the Central bank, the University,\nthe Academy of Arts, three Public Libraries, four Theaters, the grand\ncentral goods warehouse, a great number of schools and other buildings.\nIn addition, extraordinary means are taken to provide for public\ncleanliness, and the aqueducts in Edendale--we seem to be reading a\nChamber of Commerce report!--are \u201calmost without any equal in the\nworld,\u201d moreover, \u201cthey are being extended daily.\u201d The refuse is\ncleaned away by a system of pneumatic sucking apparatus. The streets\nare entirely macadamized. Electric tramways cross them in every\ndirection and bind the suburbs to the town. Such glimpses as we get of\nEdendale remind us, in fact, of a go-ahead city in California or South\nAfrica. The utopia of Freeland is progressive enough in all conscience;\nfor many of these mechanical devices were only vague anticipations in\n1889; but it is progressive in a mechanical sense; and when we examine\nit carefully, people seem to live the same sort of life here as they do\nin a \u201cmodern\u201d European or American city.\n\nThere are differences, of course; and I do not seek to minimize their\nimportance: the slum proletariat has been abolished; everyone belongs\nto the middle class and enjoys the felicities of a high-grade clerk\nor an engineer or minor official. This is the peculiarity of our\nnineteenth century utopians: they do not so much criticize the goods\nof their times as demand more of them! Buckingham and Hertzka, though\nthey differ in details, wish to extend middle class values throughout\nsociety--comfort and security and a plenitude of soap and sanitation.\nEven when the means they propose are revolutionary, the institutions\nthey would erect are conceived very much in the image of current use\nand wont, and are unspeakably tame.\n\nAs we pass from Hertzka to Bellamy these facts glare insistently at\nus. The slight air of tedium that I have not been able to disguise\nin dealing with these utopias arises, I believe, from our excessive\nfamiliarity with their contents. Our nineteenth century utopias, if\nwe except those of Fourier and Spence and a few more distinguished\nones which we shall presently come to, do not dream of a renovated\nworld: they keep on adding inventions to the present one. These utopias\nbecome vast reticulations of steel and red-tape, until we feel that we\nare caught in the Nightmare of the Age of Machinery; and shall never\nescape. If this characterization seem unjust, I beg the reader to\ncompare the utopias before Bacon with the utopias after Fourier, and\nfind out how little human significance remains in the post-eighteenth\ncentury utopia when the machinery for supporting the good life is\nblotted out. These utopias are all machinery: the means has become the\nend, and the genuine problem of ends has been forgotten.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER EIGHT\n\n  How \u00c9tienne Cabet dreamed of a new Napoleon called Icar, and\n      a new France called Icaria; and how his utopia, with that\n      which Edward Bellamy shows us in Looking Backward, gives us\n      a hint of what machinery might bring us to if the industrial\n      organization were nationalized.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER EIGHT\n\n\n1\n\n\u00c9tienne Cabet opened his eyes upon the year that preceded the meeting\nof the National Assembly in 1788, and closed them upon the Empire of\nNapoleon III.\n\nIt would be foolish to give an account of Cabet\u2019s Voyage en Icarie\nwithout noting these facts; for the reason that Cabet\u2019s most\nimpressionable years were drenched with the flamboyant light of the\nNapoleonic conquests and the Napoleonic tradition which remained as an\nafterglow when the conquests themselves had fallen below the horizon.\nThe spectacle of a nationalized church and a nationalized system of\neducation, extending their ministrations to the smallest commune\nthrough a vast system of bureaucracy, must have given a solidity to his\ndreams which the interruption of the first Napoleon\u2019s personal downfall\ncould only have reinforced.\n\nTo understand why the Journey to Icaria, as we may call it, should\nhave been one of the best sellers among workingmen in 1845, and to see\nwhy Louis Blanc should have attempted to set up an organization of\nNational Workshops in 1848, one must realize the historic momentum of\nNapoleon\u2019s dictatorship. Cabet consciously or unconsciously idealized\nthe Napoleonic tradition; and in Icaria he consummated it. That Cabet\u2019s\nfutile will-to-power should have led him, under the inspiration of\nOwen, to the swamps of Missouri as the leader of a little band of\ncommunist pioneers is an ironic twist of circumstance: his Icaria was\na national state, with all its pomp and dignity and splendor, and not\na squalid collection of huts in the midst of a dreary prairie. Cabet\ndied in America, as much perhaps from an outraged sense of dignity as\nfrom any physical disease, and nothing came of his utopia until Edward\nBellamy gave it a fresh outline in Looking Backward.\n\n\n2\n\nWith the romantic element in the Journey to Icaria--the English lord\nand the Icarian family he visits, and the various friendships and love\naffairs that are outlined in its pages--I purpose to have nothing to\ndo. These things add an element of complication to Cabet\u2019s picture\nwithout doing very much to illuminate it.\n\nIcaria is a country divided into a hundred provinces almost equal\nin extent and almost the same in population. These provinces are in\nturn divided into ten communes, which are likewise almost equal,\nand the provincial capital is in the center of the province, whilst\neach communal city is the center of the commune. The elegance and\nprecision of the decimal system has overlaid the facts of geography\nand as one looks over the map of the imaginary country one recalls\nthe way in which the French revolution divided France into arbitrary\nadministrative areas called departments, upsetting those ancient\nregional groupings which corresponded, roughly, with the natural units\nof soil, climate, population, and historic continuity.\n\nIn the midst of Icaria is the city of Icara. Icara is a reconstructed\nParis, built on a reconstructed Seine. It is almost circular, cut\ninto two equal parts by a river whose banks have been straightened\nand enclosed in two straight walls; and the bed has been deepened to\nreceive ocean vessels. In the middle of the city the river divides\ninto two arms, which form a rather big circular island--though the\nislands formed naturally by the division of a river are inevitably\nnot circular!--and here is the civic center, planted with trees, in\nthe midst of which stands a palace. There is a superb garden elevated\non a terrace; in the center, a vast column surmounted by a colossal\nstatue that dominates all the buildings. On each side of the river\nis a big quay, bordered by public offices. The effect is indubitably\nmetropolitan.\n\nThe city is divided into quarters: Icara has sixty communes of almost\nequal size. In each quarter is a school, a hospital, a temple, shops,\npublic places, and monuments. The streets are straight and wide, the\ncity being traversed by fifty avenues parallel to the river and fifty\nperpendicular to it. How it is possible to reconcile this street plan\nwith a circular city I have no notion; and Cabet apparently did not\ntake the trouble to cast his verbal specifications into a definite\npicture or plan. Each block has fifteen houses on each side, with a\npublic building in the middle, and one at each end; and between the\nrows of houses are gardens which the inhabitants of Icaria, like\nthose of Utopia, have a great pride in keeping up. The blocks are\narranged around squares, very much like those of Belgravia and Mayfair\nin London; but the gardens are public ones and are cared for by the\ninhabitants.\n\nThe Icarian villages are almost as metropolitan as the principal city\nitself. One notes a great preoccupation with hygienic conveniences and\nsanitary regulations. There are dust collectors of special model; the\nsidewalks are covered with glass against rain; and the stations for\nomnibuses are also covered. The streets are well-lighted and paved.\nStables, slaughter houses, and hospitals are on the outskirts of the\nvillage. The factories and warehouses are on the railway lines and\ncanals, and half the streets are closed to all traffic except dog-carts.\n\nIn sum, Icaria enjoys a highly sophisticated and metropolitan form of\nlife. Everything has been \u201carranged,\u201d everything has been \u201cattended\nto.\u201d There are no upsetting complications and diversities. Even the\nweather has been disposed of. Nothing short of a very powerful and\npersistent organization could have accomplished these things. What is\nthis organization?\n\n\n3\n\nIn the beginning was Icar, the dictator who established the government\nof Icaria, and out of Icar there sprang a number of bureaux,\ndepartments, and committees. Let us follow a typical Icarian through\nhis day, and examine the institutions he comes in contact with.\n\nOur Icarian is an early riser by necessity, for at 6 A.\u00a0M. breakfast is\nserved in a restaurant or factory. It is not a capricious breakfast;\nit is such a breakfast, perhaps, as the guardians of Battle Creek,\nMichigan, dream of. The food that is served in Icaria is regulated by\na committee of scientists; and while everybody has all that is good\nfor him, precisely what is good and in what amounts, someone else has\ndecided in advance. So it is at present in our armies and navies,\nand to some extent in our cheap lunchrooms, the difference being that\nthere remains, outside Icaria, the possibility of breaking away from\nthe routine and following caprice and appetite without respect for the\ncommittee of dietitians.\n\nWhen our Icarian has breakfasted, he goes to his work, seven hours\nin summer, six in winter. He works the same number of hours as every\nother Icarian, and whether he works in the field or the workshop, the\nproducts of his industry are deposited in public stores. Who is his\nemployer? The State. Who owns all the instruments of production and\nservice, down to the horses and carriages? The State. Who organizes the\nworkers? The State. Who constructs the stores and factories, attends\nto the cultivation of the ground, has houses built, and makes all the\nthings necessary for clothing, lodging, and transport? The same. In\ntheory, the public is the sole proprietor and director of industry; in\npractice--Cabet doesn\u2019t tell us otherwise and it necessarily follows in\na system of national industry--a body of engineers and officials have\ntaken over the dictatorship of Icar and are running the affairs of the\ncommunity.\n\nHow familiar this Icaria seems to us. Utopia--_c\u2019est la guerre_!\n\nWhen he is through with his work, our Icarian possibly changes his\nclothes. Exactly what clothes are necessary, and what are permissible\nhas already been prescribed by a committee on clothes; which comes to\nsaying that every Icarian\u2019s dress is a uniform, even as every Icarian\nis an official of the State. Eating, working, dressing, sleeping--there\nis no getting away from State regulations. The uniformity that irks\nus in modern life and that makes people who have some remnant of free\ninitiative in their makeup chafe in the civil service, to say nothing\nof the army, is extended to the last degree in Icaria. Napoleon\u2019s\nconception of a nation in arms is dominant; only now it is a nation in\noveralls.\n\nOur Icarian\u2019s father and mother were married after a six-month interval\nof courtship. Since they took advantage of the institution at the\nearliest moment permitted by law, he was twenty and she was eighteen.\nBy education, they had been taught to look upon conjugal fidelity as a\ndesideratum; and they realized that concubinage and adultery would be\nlooked upon as crimes by public opinion, even if these crimes were not\npunished by law. Before our Icarian was born his mother received public\ninstruction on maternity.\n\nUp to the age of five our Icarian\u2019s education was domestic; but from\nthe fifth to the seventeenth or eighteenth year, domestic instruction\nwas combined with intellectual and moral education, under a program\nlaid down by a committee which had consulted all systems of education,\nancient and modern. His general or elementary education was the same as\nthat of every other Icarian; but at seventeen for girls and eighteen\nfor men, his professional education began.\n\nThe only industries or professions open to our Icarians were those\nrecognized and sanctioned by the State; and every year a list is\npublished telling the number of workers needed in each profession. The\nnumber of workers, in turn, is determined by a committee on industry,\nwhich plans the amount of goods that must be produced during the coming\nyear. Our Icarian begins work at eighteen, his sister at seventeen;\nand he is exempt from work at sixty-five, while she would be exempt at\nfifty. The republic, I may note parenthetically, asks from each commune\nthe sort of industrial and agricultural production which goes best\nwith its natural resources; delivering its surplus production to other\ncommunes and giving it, in turn, what it may lack.\n\nCabet describes all these institutions in the minutest fashion, down\nto the noiseless window with which each Icarian\u2019s house is equipt; but\nthe broad outlines of the industrial and social system are contained\nin this picture. What we see is a National State, abundantly organized\nfor war, and remaining on that footing in the midst of its peace-time\nactivities. What is not of national importance, in this scheme of\nthings, is of no importance; and the people who decide what is or is\nnot of national importance are the officeholders--I find it difficult\nto discover a utopian equivalent for this word or to fancy any great\nimprovement in utopia--in the capital.\n\nThe political activities that regulate these Icarian institutions\ndo not greatly reassure us. From each of the thousand communes two\ndeputies are chosen to hold office for two years: this constitutes\nthe national representation. The basis of this system is the\ncommunal assembly; and from this communal assembly the provincial\nrepresentatives are drawn. The national executive consists of sixteen\nmembers, each with a special department; and it is plain that here is\nthe seat of power; for exactly what business remains in the hands of\nthe two thousand legislators when the food committee has determined\nthe amount and variety of food, the industrial committee the quantity\nand kind of manufactured products, and the educational committee the\nmethods, subjects, and aims of education, it is a little hard to\ndetermine.\n\nThere are no newspapers and no means of organized criticism, except\nthe right of submitting propositions to the popular assemblies. The\nonly thing resembling public opinion is the collective opinion of\nthese assemblies. The newspapers are published by the government, one\nfor the nation, one for the province, and one for the commune; and\nthey are devoted solely to the presentation of news, divorced from\nopinion. For this kind of political system, and for all the power that\nit might presume to wield, there is a word in philosophy which has\nno substitute--epiphenomenon. The popular system of representation\nin Icaria is but a shadow of that dictatorial power which was first\nwielded by Icar and was in turn transmitted to the committees and\nbureaux.\n\nIf I have been criticizing Icaria in terms of the last century of\npolitical experience, I can only plead that it is because Icaria is so\nlittle like Utopia and so much like the actual order of things. It must\nbe prepared to stand fire as a _fait accompli_: indeed, in the early\ndays of the second Russian revolution it came near to being a _fait\naccompli_--there was more of Cabet than of Marx perhaps in embryonic\nSoviet Russia! Icaria is essentially not an ideal but an idealization;\nand it is in order to keep the two from being confused that I have\nemphasized its little weaknesses. What is good in Icaria is what is\ngood in the institution of an army; what is bad is what is bad in the\nexecution of a war. If the good life could be perpetrated by a junta\nof busybodies, as Plato would call them, Icaria would be a model\ncommunity.\n\n\n4\n\nLooking backward into the future: that was the paradox by which a\nyoung New England romancer, Edward Bellamy, concerned like Thoreau and\nEmerson and the rest of the great Concord school with the well-being\nof his community, descended from literature to sociology; and stirred\nthe minds of thousands of people in America in much the same fashion\nthat Theodor Hertzka, writing at the same time, stirred his European\ncontemporaries. Having begun to romanticize about reality, Bellamy\nduring the decade that followed the publication of Looking Backward,\ndevoted himself to realizing his romance. In a later work, Equality,\nhe set forth his picture of the New Society of the year 2000 in much\ngreater detail; just as if the popularity of his first work committed\nhim to take up seriously the tasks of the economist and the statesman.\n\nThe chief pleasure, nowadays, in both of these books is the familiar\none of recognition; for if Bellamy did not portray a better future he\nat any rate, like Mr. H.\u00a0G. Wells, in his early romances, outlined\nmany parts of a future that has for us, in the twentieth century,\nbecome an actuality; a fact which makes us realize very poignantly\nthe limitations of his utopia. In spite of a thin-lipped style,\nBellamy handles his story in a neat, workmanlike way, with a certain\nplausibility and familiarity which doubtless explains the fact that it\ncan still be found, without any difficulty, on the fiction shelves of\nour circulating public libraries.\n\nThe preface to Looking Backward is dated: \u201cHistorical Section Shawmut\nCollege, Boston, December 26, 2000.\u201d In that preface the work is\npresented as an avowed romance which will enable the readers of 2000\nto realize the gaps that separate them from their ancestors, and to\nvalue the prodigious \u201cmoral and material\u201d transformation that has taken\nplace in a few generations. Julius West is a person whom our Shawmut\nhistorian invents, to bridge the gap between the two eras. Julius West,\na young man of wealth, sensitive to the ignominy of his position, and\nfeeling that, as a \u201crich man living among the poor, an educated man\namong the uneducated,\u201d he \u201cwas like one living in isolation among a\njealous and alien race.\u201d In order to overcome his insomnia West sleeps\nin a vaulted room in the foundations of his house, and gets put to\nsleep by a hypnotist; and so by a dramatic oversight he hibernates for\n113 years, and awakens among strange faces. Needless to say, West has\na love affair in the old world which is carried on in the new, through\na descendant of the girl he meant to marry; and it is equally needless\nto observe that he reawakens to the world of 1887 as soon as the\ninstitutions of 2000 have been described and the love affair has been\nresolved.\n\nLet us take West\u2019s muzziness, his amazement, and his sense of isolation\nfor granted, and follow him as he explores his new environment.\n\n\n5\n\nIf Plato cavalierly disposes of the labor problem of the Republic by\npermitting things to remain pretty much as they were, Bellamy makes\nthe solution of labor organization and the distribution of wealth the\nkey to every other institution in his utopia.\n\nIn the United States of 1887 the growing organization of labor and the\naggregation of capital into trusts were the two chief economic factors:\nDr. Leete, Julius West\u2019s host, pictures how this aggregation and\ncombination were continued until, by a mere shift of gears, \u201cthe epoch\nof trusts had ended in The Great Trust.\u201d In a word, \u201cthe people of the\nUnited States concluded to assume the conduct of their own business,\njust as one hundred years before they had assumed the conduct of their\nown government, organizing now for industrial purposes on precisely the\nsame grounds that they had organized for political purposes.\u201d Was there\nany violence in this transition? Ah no! everything had been prepared\nbeforehand by public opinion, the great corporations had gradually\ntrained everybody into an acceptance of large-scale organization, and\nthe final step of merging all the big corporations into a national\ncorporation occurred without a jar. With the assumption by the nation\nof the mills, machinery, railroads, farms, mines, and capital in\ngeneral, all the difficulties of labor vanished, for every citizen\nbecame by virtue of his citizenship an employee of the government, and\nwas distributed according to the needs of industry.\n\nIn 2000 \u201cthe labor army\u201d is not a figure of speech: it is an army\nindeed, for the nation is a single industrial unit, and the principle\nupon which the working force is recruited is universal compulsory\nindustrial service. After a man\u2019s education has been completed in the\ncommon school system, which extends straight through college, he must\nfirst serve a term of three years in an unclassified labor army, which\nperforms all the rough and menial tasks of the community. When this\nperiod is over, he is permitted to offer himself as a recruit in any of\nthe trades or professions which may be declared open by the government,\nand can train for his calling up to the age of thirty, in the national\nschools and institutes. In order to attract people into occupations\nwhere they are needed, the hours are reduced and, for the dangerous\ntrades, volunteers are called for. There are however no discriminations\nin pay. Every person is credited with a sum of four thousand dollars\nper annum at the National Bank, a sum which he receives because of his\nneeds as a man and not because of his capacity as a worker. Instead\nof being rewarded for giving the full measure of his energies and\nabilities, a man is penalized if he fails to do so. It is possible\nto shift from one branch of the service to another, under certain\nrestrictions, even as in the navy one can change one\u2019s rating and\napply for service on a different ship or station, but except for the\npossibility of retiring on a half-income at the age of thirty-three,\neveryone must remain at work until he is forty-five.\n\nTo this rule there is one exception; and we may note ironically that\nit is made in favor of the writer\u2019s guild. If a man produces a book he\nmay name his own royalties, and live as long from this income as the\nsale will allow; and if he wishes to start a newspaper or a magazine,\nand can get credit from a sufficient number of other people to support\nhis enterprise, there is nothing to prevent him from remitting service\nto the amount his guarantors are ready to deduct from their personal\nincome. In other words, a man must \u201ceither by literary, artistic,\nor inventive productiveness indemnify the nation for the loss of his\nservices, or must get a sufficient number of people to contribute to\nsuch an indemnity.\u201d This is the one open hole in our militarized,\nindustrial utopia; and I think it is the most acceptable feature in the\nwhole system. A community organized as a single unit, directed by a\ngeneral staff at Washington, and perpetually exhibiting a herd complex\nwhich every institution would naturally reinforce, might not be a very\ngenial shelter for the soul of an artist; but if it were, this means of\nsupport would doubtless be fair and excellent for the encouragement of\nthe arts.\n\nTo go back to our army. The entire field of production and distribution\nis divided into ten great departments, each representing a group of\nallied industries; and each particular industry is in turn represented\nby a subordinate bureau, which has a complete record of the plant and\nthe force under its control, of the present product, and of the means\nof increasing it. The estimates of the distributive department, after\nadoption by the administration, are sent as mandates to the ten great\ndepartments, which allot them to the subordinate bureaux, representing\nthe particular industries, and these set the men at work.... \u201cAfter the\nnecessary contingents have been detailed for the various industries,\nthe amount of labor left for other employment is expended in creating\nfixed capital, such as buildings, machinery, engineering works, and so\nforth.\u201d\n\nIn order to safeguard the consumer from the caprices of the\nadministration, a new article must be produced as soon as a certain\nguaranteed demand for it has been established by popular petition,\nwhilst an old article must be continued to be produced as long as\nthere are customers for it, provision being made that the price rise in\naccordance with the greater cost of production per unit.\n\nNow the general of this industrial army is the president of the United\nStates. He is chosen from among the corps commanders; and it is\nprovided that every officer in the army, from the president down to\nthe sergeant, must work his way up from the grade of common laborer.\nThe chief peculiarity of this system consists in the way in which the\nvoting is done. The voters are all honorary members of the guild to\nwhich they belong; that is, men who are over forty-five years old;\nthis applies not merely to the ten lieutenant generals, but to the\ncommander-in-chief, who is not eligible for the presidency until he\nhas been a certain number of years out of office. The president is\nelected by vote of all the men of the nation who are not connected\nwith the industrial army; for any other method, Bellamy thinks,\nwould be prejudicial to discipline. There are various names for this\npractice: one of them is gerontocracy, or government by the aged; and\nanother, more familiar, is \u201calumni control.\u201d When we recollect that\nthe hardships of military service look rather mild and pleasant to\nthe man who has been mustered out, I doubt if the youngsters in the\nindustrial army would stand much chance of having their lot improved\nif the initiative for a change had to come from the alumni. Yet we\nknow what even the formation of a worker\u2019s shop committee would be\nin an industrial army: it would be mutiny. As for criticism of the\nadministration, that would be treason; admiration for the practices of\nanother country would be disloyalty; and advocacy of a change in the\nmethod of industry would be sedition.\n\nTrue: corruption and bribe-taking and all the dirty scandals that\nwe associate today with a financial oligarchy would be wiped out\nin utopia; but this merely means that the defects of the old order\nwould disappear along with its virtues. What would remain would be\nthe defects that arise when a nation is in arms, and when there is\nno escape, by travel or mental withdrawal, from its institutions; in\nshort, the defects of a state of war. To call this a peaceful community\nis absurd: one might as well call a battleship a pleasure-craft because\na modern one possesses a band and shows motion pictures to the crew.\nThe organization of this utopia is an organization for war; and the\none rule that such a community would not tolerate is \u201clive and let\nlive.\u201d If this is the peace that \u201cindustrial preparedness\u201d ensures it\nis scarcely worth having. Any community that liked this state of life\nwould scarcely need the constant exhortation of the recruiting sergeant\nor the final compulsion of a conscription act.\n\n\n6\n\nThe great part of Looking Backward is a discussion of this perfected\nform of industrial organization; the manner in which it is worked;\nand the effects of complete economic equality in doing away with the\nnecessity for the greater part of the legal machinery of the present\nday, since crimes with an economic motive would almost, according to\nBellamy, be unthinkable. Here and there however we have glimpses of the\nsocial life of this new age.\n\nFirst of all, there floats before our eyes the picture of a vast body\nof superannuated persons, who for the most part spend their time in\na sort of country-club existence. They can travel, because the other\ncountries in the world are likewise nationalized, and by a simple\nsystem of book-keeping foreign credit for goods and personal services\ncan be transferred from one country to another; and they can take up\nspecial vocations and hobbies during their superannuated years; but\nit is equally plain that their work has not done very much to foster\nintellectual or emotional maturity, since in relation to the citizens\nthe state exists as a \u201cGreat White Father\u201d; and there is good reason\nperhaps for the great interest in sport which characterizes Bellamy\u2019s\nutopia. Games are organized, apparently, upon lines of industrial guild\nrivalry; just as one has sports nowadays between rival battleship\nsquadrons perhaps; for \u201cif bread is the first necessity of life,\nrecreation is a second, and the nation caters for both.\u201d The demand\nfor bread and circuses, our guide explains, is recognized in the year\n2000 as a wholly reasonable one. Both work and play are external to the\ncitizen\u2019s inner trends and interests; and we should not be surprised\nif an infantile element predominated in the character of this happy\nrepublic.\n\nThis externalism, this impersonality, seems to characterize the whole\nscene. We follow Julius West and his new love, Edith, into a modern\nshop, where everything is displayed by sample, and an order for goods\nis sent to a central warehouse, and along with undoubted economies\nof space and time, we note that there is an almost complete absence\nof personal contacts or relationships: more than ever the worker has\nbecome a cog in the machine, more than ever he deals with a thin,\nbarren, abstract world of paper notations, more than ever his desire\nfor social contacts is dammed up; and so, more than ever, there must be\noccasion in this new age for stimulants and socialities beside which\nthe roller coasters of Coney Island and the promiscuities of a modern\ndance hall would be insipid things. Bellamy does not show us what these\ncompensatory institutions would be: but he has invented a high-powered\nengine of repression, and he does not fool us when he conceals the\nsafety-valve. Unless there is a safety-valve his universal army, under\na rigorous discipline for twenty-four years, is bound to blow up the\nworks. We can guess when we read the cheap illustrated papers, when we\ngo to the movies, when we watch the behavior of the crowds on Broadway,\nwhat this twenty-first century Utopia would be like--it would be all\nthat a modern city is, exaggerated. In The New Society, Dr. Walter\nRathenau drew a picture of a socialized modern society, moving along\nits present path without any change in its aims and ideals; and that\nnightmare of his must be added to Bellamy\u2019s dream in order to define it.\n\nIt is the same with every other institution. There is a big communal\nrestaurant in which each family of the neighborhood has a private room;\nthis is the place where the principal meal is ordered by the family,\nand served by young conscript waiters. Am I at fault if I point out\nthat this universal hostelry is a little too elaborate and mechanical;\nthat there is more promise of a genuine utopia in Plato\u2019s olives and\ncheese and beans, simply served, than in the \u201cperfection of catering\nand cooking\u201d which the new age boasts. So one could go down the line\nand enumerate the mechanical marvels which take the place of a fully\nhumanized life; marvels like the telephone concerts and sermons which\nastoundingly anticipate by thirty-odd years the radio broadcasting\nservice which is now a prevalent mania in America. Are these things, as\nAristotle would have said, the material bases of the good life, or are\nthey substitutes for the good life? There may have been some doubt as\nto the answer in Bellamy\u2019s time; but I think there need not be any at\npresent. In so far as these instruments are consonant with humanized\npurposes they are good; in so far as they are irrelevant they are so\nmuch rubbish--idiotic rubbish. A free public library is a good thing;\nbut a free public library devoted exclusively to distributing the\nnovels of Gene Stratton Porter and the uplift books of Mr. Orison Swett\nMarden would not contribute so much as a useful platitude towards a\nvivid and stimulating society.\n\nThere is no escaping the problem of ends and the problem of ends, if\nI may be permitted a pun, belongs at the beginning. Subordinate to\nhumanized ends, machinery and organization--yes, complicated machinery\nand organization--have undoubtedly a useful contribution to make\ntowards a good community; unsubordinated, or subordinated only to\nthe engineer\u2019s conceptions of an efficient industrial equipment and\npersonnel, the most innocent machine may be as humanly devastating\nas a Lewis gun. All this Bellamy overlooked in Looking Backward, and\nyet--something remains.\n\nWhat remains in Looking Backward is the honest passion that inspired\nthe man; the play of generous impulses; the insistence that there\nis no fun for an ordinarily imaginative person in dining with Dives\nwhilst Lazarus hangs around the table. Bellamy wanted everyone to\nbe equally educated, so that everyone might be his companion; he\nwanted everyone to be decently fed and sheltered; he wanted to take\nhis share in the dirty work and to see that accidents of wealth did\nnot keep other people from taking theirs. He wanted private life to\nbe simple and public life to be splendid. He wanted men and women\nto mate with each other without permitting this relationship to be\ncompromised by obligations to a father, a mother, or the butcher,\nthe baker, and the grocer. He wanted the generous, the just, and the\ntender-hearted to be as well endowed as the cold-hearted, the greedy,\nand the self-seeking. He pleaded for an absence of artificiality and\nrestraint in the relations of the sexes; for such a candor as has\nperhaps come into fashion again--thank heaven!--today, a candor which\npermits women physical freedom in dress, and a spiritual freedom in\nexhibiting their love, and giving it freely. All this is to the good.\nI do not question Bellamy\u2019s fine motives; I question only the outlets\nhe imagined for them. There is a breach between Bellamy\u2019s conception of\nthe good life and the structure he erected to shelter it. This breach\nis due, I believe, to an over-emphasis of the part that wholesale\nmechanical organization, directed by a handful of people, would play\nin such a reconstruction. If Bellamy sometimes exaggerated the bad in\nmodern society, with its muddle of competitive privileges, he likewise\noverestimated the good that it contained; and he was more than fair to\nthe present order of things when he made the future so closely in its\nimage.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER NINE\n\n  How William Morris and W.\u00a0H. Hudson renew the classic tradition\n      of utopias; and how, finally, Mr. H.\u00a0G. Wells sums up and\n      clarifies the utopias of the past, and brings them into\n      contact with the world of the present.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER NINE\n\n\n1\n\nIt would be a pretty sad thing if the Utopias of the nineteenth century\nwere all of a piece with those of Buckingham and Bellamy. In general we\nmay say that all the utopias of reconstruction had a deadly sameness\nof purpose and a depressing singleness of interest; and although they\nsaw society whole, they saw the problem of reconstructing society\nas a simple problem of industrial reorganization. Fortunately, the\nutopias of escape have something to contribute which the utopias of\nreconstruction lack; and if William Morris, for example, seems too\nremote from Manchester and Minneapolis to be of any use, he is by that\ntoken a little nearer the essential human realities: he knows that\nthe chief dignity of man lies not in what he consumes but in what he\ncreates, and that the Manchester ideal is--devastatingly consumptive.\n\nBefore I go into these utopias of escape, I wish to point out the\nstrange way in which the three utopias we shall examine return as\nit were upon their classic models, each of the returns being, it is\nfairly plain, without the consciousness of the writer. Mr. W.\u00a0H. Hudson\nreturns upon More; and in A Crystal Age the farmstead and the family\nis the ultimate unit of social life. In News from Nowhere the city of\nworkers, such as Andre\u00e6 dreamed of, comes again into being; and in\nA Modern Utopia, with its order of Samurai, we are ruled once more\nby a highly disciplined class of Platonic guardians. Mr. Hudson is a\nnaturalist with a deep sympathy for the rural life of England; William\nMorris was a craftsman who knew what the English town was like before\nit had been blighted by industrialism; and with both of these men we\nfeel close to the essential life of man and the essential occupations.\n\n\n2\n\nAs the clouded vision of the traveller to the Crystal Age clears, he\nfinds himself received in a great Country House, which is inhabited\nby a large group of men and women who till the land and perform the\nsimple operations of weaving and stonecutting and the like. All over\nthe world, one gathers, these great country houses dot the landscape.\nEach of them is no weekend center of social life but a permanent home;\nindeed their permanence is almost past believing; for in each house\ntraditions are carried back thousands of years. The great cities and\nthe complicated metropolitan customs that they produced have long been\nwiped away, as one might wipe away mold. The world has been stabilized;\nthe itch for getting and spending has disappeared. Our traveller must\nbind himself to work for a whole year in order to pay for the garments\nhis house-mates weave for him, garments whose texture and cut have a\nclassic turn.\n\nThis household, I say, is the social unit of the Crystal Age: the\nhouse-father administers the laws and customs, and he dispenses the\npunishment of seclusion when the visitor trespasses upon the code of\nthe house. The house-mates work together, eat together, play together,\nand listen together to the music of a mechanical instrument called\nthe musical sphere. At night they sleep in separate little cubicles\nwhich can be opened to the night air. The horses and dogs of the\nCrystal Age have a degree of intelligence which our common breeds do\nnot possess, so that the horses all but harness themselves to the\nplow, and the dog teaches the traveller when to leave off working the\nanimals. Each household has not merely its laws and traditions: it has\nits literature; its written history; and the very girl with whom the\ntraveller falls in love bears a resemblance to the sculptured face of\nan unhappy house-mother who lived and suffered in the immemorial past.\nThese houses, these families, these social relations are built for\nendurance. What is the secret of their strength?\n\nThe secret of our Crystal Age Utopia is the secret of the beehive: a\nqueen bee. The Crystallites have done away with the difficulties of\nmating by appointing one woman, in every house, to be the house-mother,\nthe woman whose capital duty is to carry on the family: the entire\nburden of each generation falls upon her shoulders, and in return for\nthe sacrifice she is treated with the respect due to divinity, like\nthe young man who was chosen in the Kingdom of Montezuma, as the tales\nhave it, to represent the chief deity until at the end of a year he\nwas disembowelled. The wish of a house-mother is a command; the word\nof the house-mother is law. For a year before her retirement as mother\nshe is put into communion with the sacred books of the house, and has\nat her command a store of knowledge which the rest of the hive are not\npermitted to share. It is she who keeps burning the fires of life.\n\nFor all except the house-mother sex is a matter of purely physical\nappearance. The Crystallites, if we may speak irreverently, are\n\u201ccontent with a vegetable love--which would certainly not suit me\u201d\nnor, it appears, did it suit our traveller to the Crystal Age, when he\ndiscovers that his passion could never be reciprocated by his beloved,\neven if she so far transgressed the laws of the household as to give\nway to him. Against the appearance of passion and all the mortal\ngriefs that it carries with it, the house-mother possesses a remedy.\nWhen in the murk of despair our traveller turns to her for advice and\nconsolation, she gives him a phial of liquid. He drinks it in the\nbelief that it will make him as free from passion as his house-mates;\nand he is not deceived; for--he dies.\n\nThe social life of the household is not to be wrecked by the storms\nand stresses of the individual\u2019s passions. The engines of life are no\nlonger dangerous: the fuel has been taken away! A \u201cchill moonlight\nfelicity\u201d is all that remains.\n\n\n3\n\nThere are times when one may look upon the whole adventure of civilized\nlife as a sort of Odyssey of domestication; and in this mood the\nCrystal Age marks a terminus upon that particular aspect of the\nadventure. To the objection that this sort of utopia requires that we\nchange human nature, the answer, in terms of modern biology, is that\nthere is no apparent scientific reason why certain elements in human\nnature should not be selected and brought to the front, or why certain\nothers should not be reduced in importance and eliminated. So, for\nall practical purposes, there is no apparent reason why human nature\nshould not be changed, or why we should not be prepared to believe\nthat in times past it has been changed--communities which selectively\nbred for pugnacity and aggression committing suicide and opening the\nway for communities which socially selected other traits that made\nfor survival. It is possible that in times past man has done a great\ndeal to domesticate himself and fit himself for harmonious social\nlife; and a utopia which rests upon the notion that there should be a\ncertain direction in our breeding is not altogether luny; indeed, is\nnowadays less so than ever before, for the reason that it is possible\nto separate romantic love from physical procreation without, as the\nAthenians did, resorting to homosexuality.\n\nIf A Crystal Age opens our minds to these possibilities it is not to\nbe counted purely as a romance; in spite of the fact that as a romance\nit has passages that rival Green Mansions. Between the individual\nhouseholds and common marriages, the utopia of the beehive is a third\nalternative which possibly remains to be explored.\n\n\n4\n\nThere are regions in the world--I am thinking perhaps of the table\nland of South Africa and the Mississippi Valley--where if one dreamed\nabout utopia the apparatus to support it would be a gigantic network\nof steel, and huge communities of people would naturally flow together\nand coalesce in complicated patterns, somewhat after the fashion of\nthose which Mr. H.\u00a0G. Wells describes in When the Sleeper Awakens. It\nwould be almost impossible, I fancy, to dream of a simple life and of\nhandfuls of people in those parts of the earth: the simplicity would\nbe barrenness, and a handful of people would be lost.\n\nIt is different with the valley of the Thames, that little stream which\nbegins a short way above Oxford and meanders between banks of lush\ngrass and bending willows, down through Marlow, where musty ales have\nlong been made, past Windsor between the Great Park and the Chiltern\nHills, through Richmond and so down to Hammersmith where one might\nperhaps ford the river at low tide if an iron bridge did not carry one\nacross, till below the city of London the estuary becomes a wide tide\nof water and expands proudly to meet the sea. Nature has carved this\nvalley to the human scale: the houses are not dwarfed by the landscape;\nand except for the huge warren of London--for which nature is not\nresponsible--there is a fitness between the actor and the scene which,\nwithout offering any great Olympian moments, gives the na\u00efve and jolly\nand whole-hearted effect that one finds in a good English hunting print\nor, let us say, in Pickwick Papers. In such an atmosphere, particularly\nas one thinks of it on a day late in June, human nature bubbles\nnaturally into good nature, and whatever harshness remains, a tankard\nof ale will drain away.\n\nIt is in this valley of the Thames that William Morris awoke to find\nhis utopia, after returning to his home in Hammersmith, the last really\nurban borough of London as one goes upstream. From that landscape,\nsweetened and freshened and ridden of cockney landmarks, Morris evokes\nthe spirit of the River God, as Socrates and Ph\u00e6drus, by the banks of\nthe Ilyssus, call forth the spirit of Pan.\n\nWith all the grime and tedium of the dull \u2019eighties lying upon his\nsoul, Morris finds himself transported to a world which has been\ncleansed by a revolution of a greater part of the nineteenth century\nlandmarks. In the meanwhile, grass has laid a decent blanket over many\nirretrievable ruins. The house in which he has gone to bed is now a\nGuest House; and he is first received into this refurbished world by\na boatman who takes him for a morning swim on the Thames, and knows\nabout the value of money only as a collector of copper curios might. At\nbreakfast, he finds himself among a group of friendly people, who call\nhim \u201cGuest\u201d; and he is taken firmly and sweetly and quite serenely in\nhand by the comely young women who preside over the house. These women,\nlike everyone else in the new Thames valley, are healthy, full-blooded,\nathletic, sane, and free from the puling maladies which idleness or\noverwork gave to the women of the nineteenth century. The other guests\nare a weaver who has come down from the north to take a turn at the\nboatman\u2019s job while the latter goes up towards Oxford to help gather in\nthe hay, and a loquacious dustman in marvellous greens and golds.\n\nIn this new England, work has become what one would call in the\nkindergarten \u201cbusy work\u201d: in the simplification of the standard of\nliving and the release from the pressure of artificially stimulated\nwants, the main business of getting a living is easily performed,\nand the chief concern of everyone is to do his work under the\npleasantest conditions possible--a demand which brings back many of\nthe handicrafts, and places a great premium on manual skill. Although\nthe mechanical arts have been improved in certain directions, for in\nhis trip up the Thames our guest meets with a barge driven by some\ninternal engine, let us say by electricity, a good many devices have\nbeen allowed to fall into disuse, because, although the output in goods\nmight be greater, the work itself and the way of life it promotes\nare not so beneficial as the simple methods of hand labor. In every\ndirection, simplicity and direct action and the immediate supply and\ninterchange of goods out of local produce, has taken the place of\nthe monstrously complicated system of traffic that prevailed in the\nearlier imperialistic world. Work is given freely, and the proceeds of\nwork exchanged freely, as a man might give of his goods and services\nnowadays when he welcomes a friend within his own house. A great\npart of the energy of this new community has gone into building; and\narchitecture, sculpture, and painting flourish in the townhalls and\ncommon dining halls of which each village boasts.\n\nIt follows from this that the big cities have disappeared. London\nis again a congeries of villages, mingled in great woodlands and\nmeadows where in the summer children roam about and camp and pick up\nthe simple occupations of rural life. Of all the proud monuments of\nLondon that the nineteenth century left, only the Houses of Parliament\nremain, as a storage-place for dung. There are shops, where one takes\nfor the asking, and there are common halls where people eat and have\nconversation, as they do now in restaurants--only these new hostels are\nbeautiful, spacious, and well-served.\n\nSince economic pressure is absent, the people of the Thames valley seem\nto live a life of leisure; but this life of leisure is not the aimless\nleisure of the country house, with its artificial stimulants, its\nartificial exercises, and the like: the life of dignified leisure is\na life of work; in short, the life of the artist. If other people have\ntalked of the necessity for labor, the dignity of labor, the heroism of\nlabor, these simple Englishmen have discovered the beauty of leisurely\nwork--the simple grace that follows when even the practical arts are\npursued as if they were liberal arts. In this utopia the instinct\nof workmanship, the creative impulse, has free play; and since the\nmajority of people are neither scholars nor scientists, as Sir Thomas\nMore would have had them, they find their fulfillment in adding beauty\nto all the necessities of their daily toil. Where the work itself leads\npurely to some useful end, as in the growing of wheat or grass, the\njoy of work arises out of the comradeship and good-feeling that bind\ntogether those who perform it, and the comparative lightness of the\ntasks that find many hands eager almost to the point of competition to\nperform them.\n\nOne looks at the faces of these people, and the effects of their life\nare visible. Their women are ten or fifteen years older than we should\njudge by their appearance; and on every face is written the healthy\nserenity that follows when people do good work, with a good spirit,\nin a good place. There is a candor, a plainness, a wholesomeness, an\nabsence of furtive repressions in their every gesture; and as far as\nmen can be satisfied and happy in a good environment, this community\nis satisfied and happy. There are grumblers, it goes without saying.\nOne of them is a crusty old fellow who has read ancient history and who\nsighs for the cutthroat practices of the competitive era; and there\nis another who complains of the tameness of Utopian literature, as\ncompared with that which dealt with the miseries and warped passion of\nan earlier age.\n\nThe only wretchedness in this utopia comes out of the essential human\ntragedy--the disparity between one\u2019s aims and one\u2019s attainments,\nbetween one\u2019s desires and the circumstances that clog their\nfulfillment. How can unhappiness be altogether wiped out as long as\nmaids are fickle and sexual passion strong? The boatman, for example,\nhas been mated with a beautiful girl who leaves him for another\nman; but she tires of her new love, and under the eyes of the Guest\nher uncle brings the pair together, and the drama of courtship and\nmating goes on all over again; for there are no laws to bind people\ntogether when every fibre of their being drives them apart; and in\na civilization that deals kindly even with its adults there is no\ndifficulty about giving the children all the care they need. For the\nmost part, those who suffer in love bear their burdens manfully,\nwithout wailing over imaginary wrongs which are associated with the\nworship of impossible chastities and reticences; and they turn their\nbalked impulses into the channels of work and poetry as completely as\nthey know how.\n\nIs this the arcadian age of innocence all over again? Are brutality\nand lust forever wiped out? Not at all. In sudden passion even murders\noccur, no matter how good and helpful the social order; but instead of\ncompounding murder with an additional murder, the guilty person is left\nto his own remorse. Use and wont are more powerful than law, and the\nwhole guild that earns its living from the frictions and dissidences\nof our social life has dropt into limbo. By the same token, the game\nof the ins and the outs, which we call political government, has\ndisappeared; for the only matters in which our community is interested\nare as to whether a new field is to be laid under the plow or a bridge\nthrown over a stream or a townhall built; and about such things the\nlocal community is competent to decide, without lining up in a purely\nfictitious antagonism.\n\n\n5\n\nSanity and health and good-will and tolerance--as one sculls along the\nThames, above Richmond, on a Sunday morning, between boatloads of gay\npicnickers and sauntering people, it is not impossible to imagine a\nnew social order developing on simple lines and bringing these things\ninto existence. With five million people in England, and perhaps half a\nmillion in the Thames valley, the thing would not be impossible. Then\nthe whole countryside would be dressed again in green; then buildings\nwould arise in the landscape like flowers out of the ground; then the\nkindliness and spontaneous co-operation of a happy holiday would be\nprolonged into the workaday week. We should know how to spend our time\nand with what to occupy our heads and hands, if the great wen of London\nwere removed from the Thames valley, and all the cheap cockney things\nthat London has conjured into existence were to be blasted away. We\nshould know all these things, because William Morris has told us about\nthem; and we should do all these things, because in our heart of hearts\nwe realize that they would satisfy.\n\n\n6\n\nThe utopia that remains for consideration is the last important one\nin point of time; and it is, curiously enough, the quintessential\nutopia, for it is written with a free and critical gesture, and with a\nsuccinct familiarity towards the more important books that came before\nit. Mr. H.\u00a0G. Wells, it is true, has made more than one excursion\ninto an imaginary commonwealth: The Time Machine is his earliest and\nThe World Set Free may possibly be considered as his latest. A Modern\nUtopia combines the vivid fantasy of the first picture with the more\nstrict regard for present realities that marks the second; and it is,\naltogether, a fine and lucid product of the imagination.\n\nThe assumption upon which Mr. Wells gains entrance into his utopia\ndiffers from those shipwrecks and somnambulisms in which our modern\nutopias have been stereotyped. He conceives of a modern man, a little\nthickset and protuberant, seated at a desk and brooding over the\npossibilities of man\u2019s future; and gradually this image comes to\nlife and defines his views, and his voice rises into narrative in\nsomething like the fashion of a lecturer, throwing from time to time\nhis illustrations of a New World upon the screen. He enters utopia by\nhypothesis; that is, without any other subterfuge than an act of the\nimagination; and in the thickening realities of a utopian community,\nfirst discovered in an Alpine pass, he finds himself in the company of\na sentimental botanist, who is sick with a love affair and is maudlin\nabout dogs, and who again and again wrecks this exploration of utopia\nby dragging into the midst of the scene some petty complication--about\nhis sweetheart or his doggie--that he has acquired on earth!\n\nWhere and what is this modern utopia? By hypothesis, it is a globe\nidentical with the one on which we live; it has the same oceans and\ncontinents, the same rivers and minor land-masses, the same animals\nand plants; yes, even the same people, so that each one of us has his\nutopian counterpart. Conveniently, this new earth is located beyond\nSirius; and for the most part its history is parallel to ours; except\nthat it had a critical turn for the better at a not too remote period;\nso that, while mechanical invention and science and all that sort of\nthing is exactly on the same level as ours, the scale and order is\nentirely different.\n\nThe scale and order of things is indeed different. Utopia is a world\ncommunity; it is a single civilization whose net of monorails and\nposts, whose identification bureaux, whose rules of law and order are\nthe same in England as in Switzerland; and presumably the same in\nAsia and Africa as in Europe. In every sense it is a modern utopia.\nMachinery plays an important part, and the absence of menial service is\nconspicuous from the very first contacts in which our travellers get\nthe hospitality of an inn, and find that interior decoration has verged\ntowards the style of the modern lunchroom and subway station, so that\nthe whole room can be redded, after use, by the guest himself. There\nis no harking back to the past in industry, in architecture, or in the\nmode of living. All that machinery has to offer has been accepted and\nhumanized: there is a cleanliness, an absence of squalor and confusion,\nin this world-community, which indicates that utopia has not been\npurchased by evasion.\n\nThe price of this order and spaciousness is not as heavy as that\nwhich Bellamy was willing to pay in Looking Backward. The land and\nits natural resources are owned by the community and are in the\ncustody of regional authorities; and the means of communication and\ntravel are in the hands of one common administrative body. There are\ngreat socialized enterprises such as the railways, with planetary\nramifications; there are regional industries, and there are a good many\nminor affairs which are still undertaken by private individuals and\ncompanies. Farms are worked by a co-operative association of tenant\nfarmers, upon lines suggested by Dr. Hertzka in Freeland. Perhaps the\nmost remarkable feature of utopian organization is the registration\nof every individual, with his name, numeral, finger-print, changes of\nresidence and changes in life; all of which is filed in a huge central\nfiling office, to become part of a permanent file upon the individual\u2019s\ndeath. Utopian registration gets our travellers into hot water, for\nthey are naturally mistaken for their utopian doubles; but outside of\nits use in the story this little device seems strangely beside the\npoint, and it arose, I believe, out of Mr. Wells\u2019 temperamental regard\nfor tidiness--tidiness on a planetary scale--the tagging and labelling\nof a well-conducted shop....\n\nThe people of our Modern Utopia are roughly divided into four classes:\nthe kinetic, the poietic, the base, and the dull. The kinetic are the\nactive and organizing elements in the community: as active kinetics\nthey are the managers, the enterprisers, the great administrators,\nas passive kinetics they are the minor officials, the innkeepers,\nthe shoptenders, farmers, and the like. The poietic are the creative\nelements in the community; the \u201cintellectuals\u201d we should perhaps call\nthem. This follows in general the lines laid down by Comte--chiefs,\npeople, intellectuals, and emotionals, and perhaps something of the\nsame classification was outlined by More in his Philarchs, people,\npriests, and scholars. This division of classes is a very ancient\none. In that old Indian script, the Bhagavad Gita, we find that the\npopulation is divided into Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisryas, and Sudras,\nand that their duties are \u201cdetermined by the modes that prevail in\ntheir separate natures.\u201d The residual classes of the base and the\ndull correspond to the Sudras; they are, of course, the slag of the\ncommunity; and the active elements in this class, the criminals, the\nhabitual drunkards, and the like are exported to various islands in the\nAtlantic where they have organized a community of their own in which\nthey may practice fraud, chicane, and violence to their hearts\u2019 content.\n\nLike Plato, Mr. Wells is concerned to provide for the education,\ndiscipline, and maintenance of people who will be sufficiently\ndisinterested and intelligent to keep this vast organization a going\nconcern--no ordinary politician or captain of industry will do. Hence\nthere arises a class of Samurai. These Samurai are selected by rigorous\nmental and physical tests out of youth who are past twenty-five, up to\nwhich time they may be foolish and unsettled and may sow their wild\noats. These Samurai have a high intellectual standard of achievement.\nThey live a simple life. They are under strict moral discipline, and\nfollow a minute regimentation of dress and minor details of conduct.\nThey cannot marry out of their class. Once a year they are sent out\ninto the forests, the mountains, or the waste places to shift for\nthemselves; they go \u201cbookless and weaponless, without pen or paper,\nor money\u201d; and they come back again with a new hardness and fineness\nand fortification of spirit. It is such an organization as might have\nbeen evolved at the time of the Reformation had the Order of Jesuits\nbeen able to effect a dictatorship of Christendom. I say this without\ndisparagement of either the Jesuits or the Samurai, in order to point\nout that these guardians of A Modern Utopia are plausible historic\ncharacters. All the important economic and political enterprises of\nthe state, and important vocations like that of the physician, are in\nthe hands of Samurai. They are as necessary to the social organization\nof A Modern Utopia as the research laboratories, which are provided by\ncharter with each factory, are necessary to its industrial organization.\n\n\n7\n\nThe glimpses that one gets of this utopia are full of color and light\nand movement; there are finely contained cities, surrounded by wide\nsuburban territories, cities that are not built of paper and alabaster.\nLovers pass arm in arm through the streets in the twilight; and there\nis a soft dignity in the women, with their gay, sexually unemphatic\ndresses, that charms. There are electric trains weaving silently on\nrails over the landscape of Europe, crossing under the English Channel\nby tube, and emerging in London with none of the bustle, the grinding,\nor the dirt of a modern railway ride. There are well-cultivated\nfields and adequate inns. There are no obstreperous patriotisms, as\none suspects in Looking Backward; there is none of the shirking one\nmight fear in News from Nowhere. (While our travellers are waiting to\nbe identified they stay for a while in a residential quadrangle at\nLucerne, and are given employment in a toy workshop.) There is less\ndogmatism about creeds than in Christianopolis, and an entire absence\nof menialism which contrasts with More\u2019s Utopia.\n\nThis modern utopia brings together, compares, and criticizes important\npoints that all the other utopias have raised; and it does all this\nwith a deftness and a turn of humor that speaks for Mr. Wells at his\nbest. Above all, A Modern Utopia strikes a new note, the note of\nreality, the note of the daily world from which we endeavor in vain to\nescape. More or less, all the other utopias assume that a change has\ncome over the population; that it has been diminished; that the blind,\nthe lame, and the deaf have been cured; that the mean sensual man has\nbeen converted and is ready to flap his wings and sing Hallelujah!\nThere is a minimum of these assumptions in A Modern Utopia. It is above\nall other things an accounting and a criticism; and so it forms a\nfitting prelude to the remainder of this book.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER TEN\n\n  How the Country House and Coketown became the utopias of the\n      Modern Age; and how they made the world over in their image.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER TEN\n\n\n1\n\nNow that we have ransacked the literature of ideal commonwealths for\nexamples of the utopian vision and the utopian method, there remains\nanother class of utopias which has still to be reckoned with, in order\nto make our tally complete.\n\nAll the utopias that we have dealt with so far have been filtered\nthrough an individual mind, and whereas, like any other piece of\nliterature, they grew out of a certain age and tradition of thought,\nit is dangerous to overrate their importance either as mirrors of the\nexisting order or as projectors of a new order. While again and again\nthe dream of a utopian in one age has become the reality of the next,\nas O\u2019Shaughnessy sings in his famous verses, the exact connection\nbetween the two can only be guessed at, and rarely, I suppose, can it\nbe traced. It would be a little foolish to attempt to prove that the\ninventor of the modern incubator was a student of Sir Thomas More.\n\nUp to the present the idola which have exercised the most considerable\ninfluence upon the actual life of the community are such as have been\npartly expressed in a hundred works and never perhaps fully expressed\nin one. In order to distinguish these idola from those that have\noccupied us till now, we should perhaps call them collective utopias or\nsocial myths. There is a considerable literature that relates to these\nmyths in French, one of the best known works being M. George Sorel\u2019s\nReflections on Violence; and in practice it is sometimes rather hard to\ntell where the Utopia leaves off and the social myth begins.\n\nThe history of mankind\u2019s social myths has still in the main to be\nwritten. There is a partial attempt at this over a limited period\nin Mr. Henry Osborn Taylor\u2019s The Medi\u00e6val Mind; but this is only a\nbeginning, and other ages are almost untouched. The type of myth\nthat concerns us here is not the pure action myth which M. Sorel has\nanalyzed; we are rather interested in those myths which are, as it\nwere, the ideal content of the existing order of things, myths which,\nby being consciously formulated and worked out in thought, tend to\nperpetuate and perfect that order. This type of social myth approaches\nvery closely to the classic utopia, and we could divide it, similarly,\ninto myths of escape and myths of reconstruction. Thus the myth of\npolitical freedom, for example, as formulated by the writers of the\nAmerican revolution, frequently serves as an excellent refuge for\ndisturbed consciences when the Department of Justice or the Immigration\nBureau has been a little too assiduous in its harassment of political\nagitators.\n\nUnfortunately, it has become a habit to look upon our idola as\nparticularly fine and exalted, and as representing the better side of\nhuman nature. As a matter of fact, the myths which are created in a\ncommunity under religious, political, or economic influences cannot be\ncharacterized as either good or bad: their nature is defined by their\ncapacity to help men to react creatively upon their environment and\nto develop a humane life. We have still to recognize that a belief\nin these idola is not by itself a creditable attitude. Even quite\nbase and stupid people are frequently governed by ideals; indeed, it\nis the ideals that are in many cases responsible for their baseness\nand stupidity. Neither is the habit of responding to idola any\nevidence of rational thought. People respond to \u201cideas\u201d--that is,\nto word-patterns--as they respond to the stimulus of light or heat,\nbecause they are human beings and not because they are philosophers,\nand they respond to projections, to idola, for the same reason, and\nnot because they are saints. Our myths may be the outcome of rational\nthought and practice or not; but the response to these myths is not\nperhaps more than ten times in a hundred the result of following the\nprocesses of reason from beginning to end.\n\nWe must think of our idola as a sort of diffused environment or\natmosphere, which differs in \u201cchemical content\u201d and in extension with\neach individual. Some of these idola have so uniformly taken possession\nof men\u2019s minds in a particular age that they are as much a part of the\nenvironment a baby is born into as the furniture of his house. The\nsociologists who follow \u00c9mile Durkheim have called a certain part of\nthese idola collective representations but they are wrong, I believe,\nwhen they limit these \u201crepresentations\u201d to savage or ignorant groups\nfor they are an important part of every civilized person\u2019s luggage.\nParallel with The Story of Mankind and with The Story of Utopias, which\nI have just told, it would be amusing to write The Story of Mankind\u2019s\nMyths. This work, however, would require the scholarship and industry\nof another Leibniz, and all that I wish to do here is to put together\nthe chief social myths that have played a part in Western Europe and\nAmerica during the modern period, to contrast these idola with the\nutopias of the past and the partial remedies for the present, and to\nsuggest the bearing of all this upon any new departures we may be ready\nto make.\n\nIn selecting these idola--The Country House, Coketown, the\nMegalopolis--I have been forced to gauge their strength and test their\nquality very largely by their actual results in the workaday world, and\nit is a little hard to purify them from the various institutions, old\nand new, in which they are mixt. Yet with all this taint of actuality,\nthese idola are scarcely as credible as the Republic and it will help\nmatters a little to realize that we are still within the province of\nutopia, and may exercise all the utopian privileges.\n\n\n2\n\nTo understand the utopia of the Country House we must jump back a few\ncenturies in history.\n\nAnyone who has ranged through the European castles that were built\nbefore the fourteenth century will realize that they were no more\nbuilt for comfort than is a modern battleship. They were essentially\ngarrisons of armed men whose main occupation was theft, violence,\nand murder; and every feature of their environment reflected the\nnecessities of their life. These castles would be found beetling a\ncliff or a steep hill; their walls and their buttresses would be made\nof huge, rough hewn stones; their living arrangements would resemble\nthose of a barracks with an almost complete lack of what we now regard\nas the normal decencies and privacies, except possibly for the lord and\nhis lady; and the life of these feudal bands was necessarily a crude\nand limited one.\n\nUp to the fourteenth century in Western Europe the little fortified\ntown, or the unfortified town that lay beneath the protection of a\ngarrison on a hill, was the only other social unit that competed with\nthe even more limited horizons of the peasant\u2019s village, or with the\nspacious claims for the Here and the Hereafter which were put forward\nby the Roman Church. To dream of huge metropolises and farflung armies\nand food brought from the ends of the earth would have been wilder in\nthose days than anything More pictured in his Utopia.\n\nDuring the fifteenth century in England, and in other parts of Europe\nthe same thing seems to have happened sooner or later, this life of\nagriculture and warfare and petty trade was upset: the feudal power\nof the reigning nobles was concentrated in the hands of a supreme\nlord, the King; and the King and his archives and his court settled in\nthe National Capital, instead of moving about from place to place in\nthe troubled realm. The territories of the feudal lords ceased to be\ndispersed; their possessions were confined more and more within what\nwere called national boundaries; and instead of remaining in their\ncastles the great lords gave up their crude, barbaric ways, and went up\nto the capital to be civilized. In the course of time money took the\nplace of direct tribute; instead of receiving wheat and eggs and labor,\nthe lord came into possession of a rent which could be figured in pence\nand pounds; a rent which could be transferred to the new trading cities\nfor the goods which the rest of the world had for sale. There is a\nfascinating picture of this change in W.\u00a0J. Ashley\u2019s Economic History;\nand the old life itself is outlined, with a wealth of significant\ndetail, in J.\u00a0S. Fletcher\u2019s Memorials of a Yorkshire Parish.\n\nAt the same time that this change was taking place in the physical\nlife of Western Europe, a corresponding change was taking place in the\ndomain of culture. Digging about the ruins of Rome and other cities,\nthe men of the late Middle Age discovered the remains of a great and\nopulent civilization; and exploring the manuscripts and printed books\nwhich were getting into general circulation, they found themselves face\nto face with strange conceptions of life, with habits of refinement,\nease, and sensuous luxury which the hard life of the camp and the\ncastle had never really permitted. There followed a reaction against\ntheir old life which was little less than a revulsion; and in that\nreaction two great institutions fell out of fashion. Men ceased to\nbuild castles to protect themselves against physical dangers; and they\nleft off entering monasteries in order to fortify their souls for the\nHereafter. Both the spiritual and the temporal life began to shift to\na new institution, the Country House. The idolum of the Country House\ndrew together and coalesced; and as a familiar symbol of this change\nthe colleges at Oxford which date from the Renascence can scarcely\nbe distinguished in architectural detail from the palaces which the\naristocracy were building in the same period; while our banks and our\npolitical edifices to this day bear almost universally the stamp of\nthat Roman and Grecian litter which men discovered on the outskirts of\nthe medi\u00e6val city.\n\n\n3\n\nWe do not know the Country House until we realize, to begin with,\nwhat its physical characteristics are like. There are a great many\ndescriptions which the reader may consult if he does not happen to live\nin the neighborhood of a great Country House: but perhaps instead of\nexamining the contemporary Country House it will be well to go back\nto its beginnings, and see how it was pictured in all its encrusted\nsplendor at the first movement of the Renascence--in the setting which\nFran\u00e7ois Rabelais, in one of the few downright serious passages in his\ngreat work, Gargantua, sought to provide for the good life.\n\nGargantua purposes to build a new Abbey which he calls the Abbey of\nTheleme. This Abbey is to be in every respect what the medi\u00e6val Abbey\nwas not. Hence to begin with, the Abbey, unlike the castle, is to\nlie in the midst of the open country; and unlike the monastery, it\nis to have no walls. Every member is to be furnished with a generous\napartment, consisting of a principal room, a withdrawing room, a\nhandsome closet, a wardrobe, and an oratory; and the house itself\nis to contain not merely libraries in every language, but fair and\nspacious galleries of paintings. Besides these lodgings there is to\nbe a tilt-yard, a riding court, a theatre, or public playhouse, and\na natatory or place to swim. By the river, for the Abbey is to be\nsituated on the Loire, there is to be a Garden of Pleasure, and between\ntwo of the six towers of the hexagon, in which form the building is\narranged, there are courts for tennis and other games. Add to this\norchards full of fruit trees, parks abounding with venison, and an\narchery range, fill all the halls and chambers with rich tapestries,\ncover all the pavements and floors with green cloth--and the furnishing\nof the Abbey of Theleme is complete.\n\nThe costumes of the inmates are equally splendid and elaborate. In\norder to have the accoutrements of the ladies\u2019 and gentlemen\u2019s toilets\nmore convenient, there was to be \u201cabout the wood of Theleme a row of\nhouses to the extent of half a league, very neat and cleanly, wherein\ndwelt the goldsmiths, lapidaries, jewellers, embroiderers, tailors,\ngold drawers, velvet weavers, tapestry makers, and upholsterers....\u201d\nThey were to be \u201cfurnished with matter and stuff from the hands of Lord\nNausiclete, who every year brought them seven ships from the Perlas and\nCannibal Islands, laden with ingots of gold, with raw silk, with pearls\nand precious stones.\u201d\n\nThe women who are admitted to Theleme must be fair, well-featured, and\nof sweet disposition; the men must be comely and well-conditioned.\nEveryone is to be admitted freely and allowed to depart freely; and\ninstead of attempting to practice poverty, chastity, and obedience, the\ninmates may be honorably married, may be rich, and may live at liberty.\n\nThe liberty of Theleme is indeed complete; it is such a liberty as one\nenjoys at a Country House to this day, under the care of a tactful\nhostess; for everyone does nothing except follow his own free will and\npleasure, rising out of his bed whenever he thinks good, and eating,\ndrinking, and laboring when he has a mind to it. In all their rule and\nstrictest tie of their order, as Rabelais puts it, there is but one\nclause to be observed--\n\n\u201cDo what you please.\u201d\n\n\n4\n\nWhen we turn our attention from Rabelais\u2019 conceit of an anti-monastic\norder, we discover that he has given us an excellent picture of the\nCountry House, and of what I shall take the liberty of calling Country\nHouse culture. We see pretty much the same outlines in the introduction\nto Boccaccio\u2019s Decameron; it is elaborately described in terms of that\nmost complete of Country Houses, Hampton Court, in Pope\u2019s Rape of the\nLock; it is vividly pictured by Meredith in his portrait of The Egoist;\nand it is analyzed in Mr. H.\u00a0G. Wells\u2019 cruel description of Bladesover\nin Tono-Bungay, as well as by Mr. Bernard Shaw in Heartbreak House.\nWhether Mr. W.\u00a0H. Mallock holds the pattern of Country House culture up\nto us in The New Republic or Anton Chekhov penetrates its aimlessness\nand futility in The Cherry Orchard, The Country House is one of the\nrecurrent themes of literature.\n\nThis renascence idolum of the Country House, then, is powerful and\ncomplete: I know no other pattern which has imposed its standards and\nits practices with such complete success upon the greater part of\nEuropean civilization. While the Country House was in the beginning an\naristocratic institution, it has penetrated now to every stratum of\nsociety; and although we may not immediately see the connection, it\nis responsible, I believe, for the particular go and direction which\nthe industrial revolution has taken. The Country House standards of\nconsumption are responsible for our Acquisitive Society.\n\n\n5\n\nPerhaps the shortest way to suggest the character of Country House\ninstitutions is to say that they are the precise opposite of everything\nthat Plato looked upon as desirable in a good community.\n\nThe Country House is concerned not with the happiness of the whole\ncommunity but with the felicity of the governors. The conditions which\nunderly this limited and partial good life are political power and\neconomic wealth; and in order for the life to flourish, both of these\nmust be obtained in almost limitless quantities. The chief principles\nthat characterize this society are possession and passive enjoyment.\n\nNow, in the Country House possession is based upon privilege and not\nupon work. The title to land which was historically obtained for the\nmost part through force and fraud is the economic foundation of the\nCountry House existence. In order to keep the artisans and laborers\nwho surround the Country House at their work, it is necessary to keep\nthem from having access to the land on their own account, provision\nalways being made that the usufruct of the land shall go to the owner\nand not to the worker. This emphasis upon passive ownership points\nto the fact that in the Country House there is no active communion\nbetween the people and their environment. Such activities as remain\nin the Country House--the pursuit of game, for instance--rest upon\nimitating in play activities which once had a vital use or prepared\nfor some vital function, as a child\u2019s playing with a doll is a\npreparation for motherhood. The Country House ideal is that of a\ncompletely functionless existence; or at best, an existence in which\nall the functions that properly belong to a civilized man shall be\ncarried on by functionaries. Since this ideal cannot be realized in the\nactual world, for the reason that it is completely at odds with man\u2019s\nbiological inheritance, it is necessary in the Country House utopia to\nfill in by play and sport an otherwise desirable vacuity.\n\nIn the Country House literature and the fine arts undoubtedly\nflourish: but they flourish as the objects of appreciation rather\nthan as the active, creative elements in the community\u2019s life; they\nflourish particularly in the fashion that Plato looked upon as a\ncorrupting influence in the community. In the arts, a gourmandizing\nhabit of mind--the habit of receiving things and being played upon\nby them--prevails; so that instead of the ability to share creative\necstasy, the chief canon of judgment is \u201ctaste,\u201d a certain capacity to\ndiscriminate among sensory stimuli, a capacity which is essentially\njust as hospitable to a decomposing cheese as to the very staff of\nlife. The effect of this gourmandism in the arts can be detected\nin every element of the Country House from cellar to roof; for the\nresult has been to emphasize the collection of good things rather than\ntheir creation, and there is an aspect in which the Country House is\nlittle better than a robber\u2019s hoard or a hunter\u2019s cache--a miniature\nanticipation of the modern museums of natural history and art.\n\nObserve the architecture of our Country House. If it has been built in\nEngland during the last three hundred years, the style is probably that\nbastard Greek or Roman which we call Renascence architecture; if the\nCountry House was built in America during the last thirty years, it is\nas likely as not a Tudor residence with traces of castle fortification\nleft here and there on the fa\u00e7ade. On the walls there will be plenty\nof paintings; indeed a whole gallery may be devoted to them. In all\nprobability, however, the paintings have been created in other times by\nmen long since dead, and in other countries: there may be a portrait\nby Rembrandt, a Persian miniature, a print by Hokusai. Some very fine\nelement in the structure, a fireplace or a bit of panelling, may have\nbeen removed piece by piece from the original Country House in England,\nItaly, or France; even as many features of the original Country House\nwere quarried, perhaps, from some medi\u00e6val abbey. The very china\nthat we use upon our tables nowadays is a Country House importation\nwhich took the place of pewter and earthenware; and wall paper is\nanother importation. From feature to feature everything is derivative;\neverything, in the last analysis, has either been stolen or purchased\nfrom the original makers; and what has not been stolen or purchased has\nbeen basely copied.\n\nThe insatiability of the Country House to possess art is only equalled\nby its inability to create it. In the Country House, the arts are not\nmarried to the community, but are kept for its pleasure.\n\nLet there be no confusion as to either the facts or the ideal we are\nexamining. There is a vast difference between that fine mingling of\ntraditions which is the very breath of the arts, as the lover of\nclassic Greek statuary knows, and the rapacious imperialistic habit of\nlooting the physical objects of art which has been the essence of the\nCountry House method in modern times, even as it seems to have been\na couple of thousand years ago in the Roman villa. A genuine culture\nwill borrow steadily from other cultures; but it will go to them as\nthe bee goes to the flower for pollen, and not as the beekeeper goes\nto the hive for honey. There is a creative borrowing and a possessive\nborrowing; and the Country House has in the main limited itself to\npossessive borrowing. The Country House ideal, in fact, is limitless\npossession: so the great Country House masters have five or six houses,\nperhaps, in their name, although they need but a single one to cover\ntheir heads.\n\nNow the Country House idolum involves a dissociation between the\nCountry House and the community in which it is placed. If you will\ntake the trouble to examine medi\u00e6val conditions, you will find that\ndifferences of rank and wealth did not make a very great difference\nbetween the life of the lord in his castle, and his retainers: if the\ncommon man could not claim to be as good as his lord, it is plain that\nthe lord shared most of the common man\u2019s disabilities, and was, for all\nthe exaggerations of chivalry, just as ignorant, just as illiterate,\njust as coarse. In the cities, too, the lowest workman in the guild\nshared the institutions of his masters: the churches, the guild\npageants, and the morality plays were all part and parcel of the same\nculture.\n\nThe Country House changed this condition. Culture came to mean not a\nparticipation in the creative activities of one\u2019s own community, but\nthe acquisition of the products of other communities; and it scarcely\nmatters much whether these acquisitions were within the spiritual or\nthe material domain. There had of course been the beginnings of such\na split in medi\u00e6val literature, with its vulgar Rabelaisian tales and\nits refined romances of the court; but with the integration of the\nCountry House idolum, this divorcement was accentuated in every other\nactivity of the community. One of the results of this split was that\npopular institutions were deprived of their contacts with the general\nworld of culture, and languished away; or they were transformed, as\nthe public schools of England were transformed into restricted upper\nclass institutions. Far more important than this, perhaps, was the fact\nthat each separate Country House was forced to obtain for its limited\ncircle all the elements that were necessary to the good life in a whole\ncommunity such as Plato described. We shall deal with the effects of\nthis presently.\n\n\n6\n\nLet us admit what is valid in the utopia of the Country House.\nEnjoyment is a necessary element in achievement, and by its regard for\nthe decent graces of life, for such things as an ease in manners and\na fine flow of conversation and the clash of wits and a sensitiveness\nto beautiful things, the Country House was by all odds a humanizing\ninfluence. In so far as the Country House fostered a belief in\ncontemplation and a desire for the arts apart from any uses that might\nbe made of them by way of civic advertisement; in so far as it urged\nthat all our pragmatic activities must be realized in things that are\nworth having or doing for themselves, the Country House was right,\neminently right. It was no snobbery on the part of Russian soviet\nofficialism when it opened up some of its Country Houses as rest\nhouses for the peasants and workers, and then insisted that some of\nthe airs of the Country House should be acquired there, to replace the\nrough usages of the stable, the dungpile, and the field. Ruskin and\nSamuel Butler were possibly right when they insisted that the perfect\ngentleman was a finer product than the perfect peasant or artisan:\nhe is a finer product because he is essentially more alive. Even by\nits emphasis upon appreciation the Country House did no mean service;\nfor it called attention to the fact that there were more permanent\nstandards--standards which were common to the arts of Greece and\nChina--than those which were looked upon as sufficient in the local\nregion. In sum, the Country House emphasized a human best, which was\nthe sum of a dozen partial perfections; and so all that was crude\nand inadequate in the old regional cultures was brought to light and\ncriticized. All these virtues I admit; and they hold just as good today\nas they ever did.\n\nThe fatal weakness of Country House culture comes out all the plainer\nfor this admission. The Country House did not see that enjoyment\nrested upon achievement, and was indeed inseparable from achievement.\nThe Country House strove to put achievement in one compartment and\nenjoyment in another; with the result that the craftsman who no longer\nhad the capacity to enjoy the fine arts no longer had the ability to\ncreate them. The effect of an isolated routine of enjoyment is equally\ndebilitating; for enjoyment, to the masters of the Country House came\ntoo easily, with a mere snap of the fingers, as it were, and the\ntendency of connoisseurship was to set novelty above intrinsic worth.\nHence the succession of styles by which Country House decoration has\nbecome a thing for mockery: Chinese in one age, Indian in another,\nPersian in the next, with Egyptian, Middle African, and heaven knows\nwhat else destined to follow in due order. There is nothing to settle\nto, because there is no task to be done, and no problem to work out;\nand as soon as the first taste for a style gets exhausted it is\nspeedily supplanted by another.\n\nIt would be impossible to calculate the extent to which the Country\nHouse has degraded our taste but I have little doubts as to the source\nof the degradation. The stylicism which has perverted the arts and\nhas kept a congruent modern style from developing has been the work\nof Country House culture. I remember well the contempt with which a\nfurniture manufacturer in the Chiltern Hills told me about the way\nin which he produced an original Sheraton: his knowledge of sound\nfurniture design was subordinated to some other person\u2019s knowledge of\n\u201cstyle\u201d and the miscarriage of the man\u2019s innate craftsmanship made him\nso mordant on the subject that it seemed as though he had been reading\nThorstein Veblen\u2019s Theory of the Leisure Class. It is the same through\nall the arts. A visit to the industrial sections of the Metropolitan\nMuseum in New York will show how dismally the taste for novelty, which\nled the Sheratons and Chippendales to find \u201cclassic motifs\u201d in one age,\ncauses the designers of the present day to seek the motifs of Sheraton\nand Chippendale. So much for what happened to the arts when enjoyment\nand achievement are separated.\n\n\n7\n\nThe industrial bearing of the Renascence ideal is of capital importance.\n\nDuring the Middle Age the emphasis in industry was upon the production\nof tangible goods; the craft guilds set high standards in design and\nworkmanship; and the aim of the worker, in most of the trades, was to\nget a living from his work, and not simply to get enough money to free\nhimself from the necessity of working. This is a broad generalization,\nI need scarcely emphasize, and there is plenty of evidence of pecuniary\ninterests under the best of conditions; but it seems fair to say that\nthe dominant ideals of the older industrial order were industrial\nrather than commercial. In the trading ventures that the Country House\npromoted under its Drakes and Raleighs, ventures which were needed to\nbring them \u201cShips from the Perlas and Cannibal Islands,\u201d the emphasis\nshifted from workmanship to sale; and the notion of working and\ngambling to acquire multifarious goods took the place of that earlier\nideal which Henry Adams so sympathetically described in Mt. St. Michel\nand Chartres. Thus the good life, as I have said elsewhere, was the\nGoods Life: it could be purchased. If the whole community no longer\noffered the conditions for this life, one might filch what one wanted\nfrom the general store, and try to monopolize for self or family all\nthat was needed for a good life in the community.\n\nWhat is the chief economic outcome of this ideal? The chief outcome,\nI think, is to exaggerate the demand for goods, and to cause an\nenormously wasteful duplication of the apparatus of consumption. If the\nlimit to one\u2019s possessions should be simply the extent of one\u2019s purse;\nif happiness is to be acquired through obtaining the comforts and\nluxuries of life; if a man who possesses a single house is considered\nfortunate, and a man who possesses five houses five times as fortunate;\nif there are no standards of living other than the insatiable one that\nhas been set up in the Country House--well, then there is really no\nlimit to the business of getting and spending, and our lives become the\nmean handiwork of coachman, cook, and groom. Our Country House will not\nmerely be a house: there will be a chapel, an art gallery, a theater,\na gymnasium, as Fran\u00e7ois Rabelais imagined. As the common possessions\nof the community dwindle, the private possessions of individuals\nare multiplied; and at last, there remains no other community than\na multitude of anarchic individuals, each of whom is doing his best\nto create for himself a Country House, notwithstanding the fact that\nthe net result of his endeavors--this is the drab tragedy and the\nfinal thing to be said against it--is perhaps nothing better than six\ninadequate rooms at the end of nowhere in a Philadelphia suburb.\n\nThe Country House, then, is the chief pattern by means of which the\nmedi\u00e6val order was transformed into the modern order. It does not\nmatter very much whether the Country House is an estate on Long Island\nor a cottage in Montclair; whether it is a house in Golder\u2019s Green\nor a family manor in Devonshire: these are essentially affairs of\nscale, and the underlying identity is plain enough. The idolum of the\nCountry House prevails even when quarters are taken up in the midst\nof the metropolis. More than ever the Country House today tries to\nmake up by an abundance of physical goods for all that has been lost\nthrough its divorce from the underlying community; more than ever it\nattempts to be self-sufficient within the limits of suburbia. The\nautomobile, the phonograph, and the radio-telephone have only served to\nincrease this self-sufficiency; and I need not show at length how these\ninstrumentalities have deepened the elements of acquisitiveness and\npassive, uncreative, mechanical enjoyment.\n\nThe Country House\u2019s passionate demand for physical goods has given rise\nto another institution, Coketown; and it is the idolum of Coketown, the\nindustrial age\u2019s contribution to the Country House, that we have now to\nconsider.\n\n\n8\n\nThe chief difference between the individual utopias of the nineteenth\ncentury and the \u201ccollective representation\u201d of Coketown is that these\nindividual utopias were concerned to repair certain points where\nManchester, Newark, Pittsburgh, and Elberfeld-Barmen fell short of the\nideal. In repairing these points, Bellamy and Hertzka were ready to\nalter the conventional arrangements by which property and land were\nheld, and capital was accumulated. The final end however was the same;\nand the differences are therefore more apparent than real.\n\nIf the illustrative example of the Country House is in the Abbey of\nTheleme, that of Coketown is in the sharp picture of industrialism\nwhich Charles Dickens presents in Hard Times.\n\nCoketown, as Dickens sees it, is the quintessence of the industrial\nage. It is perhaps one of the few idola of the modern world which has\nno parallel in any earlier civilization that we have been able to\nexplore. In order to understand what Coketown brought into the world,\nwe must realize that before Coketown came into existence the center\nof every important European city consisted of a marketplace, shadowed\nover by a Cathedral, a Market Court, and a Guildhall; and frequently\nthere would be an adjacent university. This was the typical formation.\nThe various quarters of the city were subordinated to these central\ninstitutions, and the work which was carried on within the city\u2019s walls\nwas more or less concretely realized in the local community.\n\nCoketown, on the other hand, was the outcome of other conditions and\nnecessities. The center of Coketown\u2019s activity was the mill, set at\nfirst in the open country near falling water, and then as coal was\napplied to steam engines, removed to areas more accessible to the coal\nfields. The factory became the new social unity; in fact it became the\nonly social unit; and, as Dickens sharply put it, \u201cthe jail looked like\nthe town hall, and the town hall like the infirmary\u201d--and all of them\nlooked like the factory, a gaunt building of murky brick that once was\nred or yellow. The sole object of the factory is to produce goods for\nsale; and every other institution is encouraged in Coketown only to the\nextent that it does not seriously interfere with this aim.\n\nWhat are the outward physical aspects of Coketown? To begin with, the\ncity is laid out by an engineer; it is laid out with a mathematical\ncorrectness and with a complete disregard for the amenities. If there\nare hills where Coketown ought to stand, the hills are leveled; if\nthere are swamps, the swamps are filled; if there are lakes, the lakes\nare drained away. The pattern to which Coketown\u2019s activities are fitted\nis that of the gridiron; there are no deviations and no allowances in\nthe working out of this plan; never will a street swerve as much as\na hair\u2019s breadth to save a stand of trees or open up a vista. In the\nmatter of transportation and intercourse, the aim of Coketown is to\n\u201cget somewhere\u201d; and it fancies that by laying down straight lines\nand joining them in rectangles this aim is expedited; despite the\ndemonstration in every city of older growth that a radial system of\nintercommunication is much more economical than the gridiron. As a\nresult, there is no terminus to any of the avenues of Coketown; for\nthey begin on a draughting board and end in infinity. It is impossible\nto approach from the front the jails, hospitals, and sanatoria of which\nCoketown boasts; the tendency is to run past them. So much for the\nphysical layout of the industrial city; what remains is obscured by\nsmoke.\n\nThe factory is the center of Coketown\u2019s social life; and it is here\nthat the greater part of the population spend their days. At its\npurest, that is to say, during the first half of the nineteenth\ncentury, and in a great many centers to this day, the factory is\nthe only institution that provides anything like a social life, in\nspite of the fact that the unremitting toil which accompanies its\nroutine reduces the graces of social intercourse to such a minimum\nthat drunkenness and copulation are the only amusements which the\ninhabitants can engage in as a relief from their noble duty of\nproviding the rest of the world with necessities, comforts, luxuries,\nand nullities.\n\nThe Coketown idolum has been disintegrating a little during the last\ntwo decades, under the influence of the garden cities movement,\nand I am aware that in certain departments I am celebrating a lost\ncause and an abandoned idealism; but there still remain in acres and\nacres of workingmen\u2019s dwellings, such as one finds in Battersea and\nPhiladelphia, and in old-fashioned railway stations, and in buildings\nlike the Mechanics Halls of Pittsburgh and Boston, a notion of what\nCoketown stood for when Coketown, the Frankenstein which had been\ncreated by the Country House, had not been repudiated by its master.\n\nCoketown is devoted to the production of material goods; and there\nis no good in Coketown that does not derive from this aim. The only\nenjoyment which those who are inured to the Coketown routine can\nparticipate in is mechanical achievement; that is to say, activity\nalong industrial and commercial lines; and the only result of this\nachievement is--more achievement. It follows that all the standards\nof Coketown are of a quantitative kind; so many score of machines, so\nmany tons of gew-gaws, so many miles of piping, so many dollars of\nprofit. The opportunities for self-assertion and constructiveness in\nsuch a community are practically boundless; and I can never confront\nthe mechanical felicities of a printing plant without realizing how\nfascinating these opportunities are, and how deeply they satisfy\ncertain elements in our nature. The unfortunate thing about Coketown,\nhowever, is that these are the only sort of opportunities that are\navailable; and work whose standards are of a qualitative sort, the work\nof scholars and artists and scientists, is either frozen out of the\ncommunity by deliberate ostracism, or is hitched to the machine; the\nartist, for example, being compelled to sing the praises of Coketown\u2019s\ngoods or to paint the portrait of Coketown\u2019s supreme esthetic\nachievement--the Self-Made Man.\n\nIn its pristine state, Coketown is not a complete community. So it is\nnatural that the idolum should have provided certain additions. In the\nfirst place, the activities of Coketown, whether they are beneficial\nor wasteful, satisfy only certain elements in the human makeup; and\nalthough much may be done by compulsory education to discipline the\nyounger generation to the machine, and to show them the necessity of\ndoing nothing which would interfere with the continued activity of the\nmachine--for work in Coketown, as Samuel Butler fearfully predicted\nin Erewhon, is in the main simply attendance upon machinery--here\nand there the igneous instincts of the workers will break through\nthe solidified layer of habit which the school and the factory have\nproduced, and the arcane energies of the population will flow either\ninto the Country House or into that other simulacrum of the civic life,\nBroadway.\n\nCoketown for the workaday week, the Country House for the weekend,\nis the compromise that has been practically countenanced; although\nthe country houses of the working classes may be nothing more than\na diminutive extension of the urban slum near sea or mountain. But\nit must be admitted that there is a permanent Country House and a\npermanent Coketown population in the more ideal aspects of the order.\nMr. Wells in the Time Machine has given a picture of Coketown which\nis perhaps a little exuberant in some of its details--the picture of\na happy and careless Country House population, living on the surface\nof the earth, mid all the graces of a jolly weekend, and that of the\nfactory population, the Morlocks, living in the bowels of the earth and\nperforming the necessary industrial functions. Mr. Wells\u2019 presentation\nis a little exaggerated, however, and we must be content here with such\na plain and outright description as Messrs. Bounderby and Gradgrind\nwould approve of.\n\nIn the Coketown scheme of things, all that does not contribute to the\nphysical necessities of life is called a comfort; and all that does not\ncontribute either to comforts or necessities is called a luxury. These\nthree grades of good correspond to the three classes of the population:\nthe necessities are for the lower order of manual workers, together\nwith such accessory members as clerks, teachers, and minor officials;\nthe comforts are for the comfortable classes, that is, the small order\nof merchants, bankers, and industrialists; while the luxuries are for\nthe aristocracy, if there is such an hereditary group, and for such as\nare able to lift themselves out of the two previous orders. Chief among\nthe luxuries, it goes without saying, are art and literature and any of\nthe other permanent interests of a humane life.\n\nLet us note what an improvement the three classes of Coketown are\nupon the three classes in Plato\u2019s Republic. The custom of limiting\nthe earnings of the working classes to the margin of subsistence is\nsingularly effective in keeping them occupied with the business of\nproduction--as long as there is no overplus in the market to throw\nthem out of work--and it is thus a safeguard of efficiency and\nindustry which Plato, who was deplorably obtuse in these matters,\ndid not provide. It is likewise obvious that the life of a middle\nclass citizen, with plenty to eat and drink, with his life protected\nby the policeman, his pocketbook protected by the insurance company,\nhis spiritual happiness protected by the church, his human sympathies\nprotected by the charity organization society, his intelligence\nprotected by the newspaper, and his economic privileges protected\nby the State--this middle class citizen is, after all, a much more\nfortunate and happy individual than those Platonic warriors whose\nlife was a perpetual effort to keep the edge on their bodies and\nminds. As for the Guardians of the State, it is plain that Plato did\nnot offer them any inducement to do their work which would attract a\nnormal commercial man: anyone who was worth a hundred thousand dollars\na year would have thought twice before assuming leadership in Plato\u2019s\nimpoverished commonwealth, whereas in Coketown he would find that\nhis simple ability to make money would be taken as sufficient proof\nof his education, his insight, and his wisdom in every department of\nlife. More than that, Coketown, when all is said and done, welcomes\nthe artist with a cordiality that puts Plato to shame: Coketown can\nafford its luxuries since, when you look at the matter squarely, a rare\npainting might be worth as much as a rare postage stamp; and it is\naccordingly an acceptable addition to the Coketown milieu.\n\nCoketown has, in fact, only one question for the arts to answer: What\nare they good for? If the answer can be expressed in money, the art\nin question is taken to be almost as satisfactory as a device to save\nlabor, to increase speed, or to multiply the output.\n\n\n9\n\nThere is one phenomenon still to be accounted for in the economy\nof Coketown; one monumental instrument without which the wheels of\nCoketown would become clogged and the very breath of Coketown be\nextinguished.\n\nI refer to the rubbish heaps.\n\nThe aim of production in Coketown is naturally more production, and it\nis only by making things sufficiently shoddy to go to pieces quickly,\nor by changing the fashion sufficiently often, that the machinery of\nCoketown can for the most part be kept running. The rage and fury of\nCoketown\u2019s production has to be balanced off by an equal rage and\nfury of consumption--continence would be fatal. As a result, nothing\nin Coketown is finished or permanent or settled: these qualities are\nanother name for death. Coketown makes china to be broken, clothes\nto be worn out, and houses to be torn down; and if something remains\nover from an earlier age which made things more soundly, it is\neither incarcerated in a museum, and derided as the monument of a\nnon-progressive age, or it is demolished as a nuisance. So powerful\nis the idolum of Coketown that in the workaday world building after\nbuilding continues to meet with irreparable ruin at the hands of\nbarbarians from Coketown: why, I have even seen innocent little\nhalf-timbered fifteenth century cottages whose fronts were obliterated\nby a nineteenth century plasterer, in the name of progress.\n\nThe status of every family in Coketown can be told by the size of its\nrubbish heap. In fact, to \u201cmake a pile\u201d in the markets of Coketown is\nultimately to make another pile--of dust and junk and litter--on the\nedge of the town where the factory district dribbles off into the open\ncountry. So in Coketown consumption is not merely a necessity: it is a\nsocial duty, a means of keeping \u201cthe wheels of civilization turning.\u201d\nAt times there appears to be a possibility that this utopia may defeat\nits purposes by producing goods at such a pace that the rubbish heaps\nwill fall behind the demands of the market; and while this mars the\ntheoretic perfection of the Coketown social organization, it is offset\nby periods of war, when the market is practically inexhaustible, and\nCoketown\u2019s prosperity increases to a point at which the working classes\nare on the point of becoming the comfortable classes without having had\nsufficient previous training to make their contribution to the rubbish\nheap--a serious pass, amidst which confusion the working classes of\nCoketown might take to reducing their working days and enjoying their\nleisure without sufficient consumptive effort.\n\nThis, then, is the idolum of Coketown. There are certain features in\nit which need to be noticed. The first is that there is a certain\nsolid reality in Coketown that remains when all its pretensions\nand idiocies have been incinerated. An environment that is devoted\nsolely to the production of material goods is obviously no sort of\nenvironment for a good community, for life is more than a matter of\nfinding what we shall eat and wherewithal we shall be clothed: it is\nan interaction with a whole world of landscapes, living creatures and\nideas, in comparison with which Coketown is a mere blister on the\nearth\u2019s surface. Nevertheless, with respect to the business of melting\nsteel and building roads and performing certain essential industrial\noperations, the aims of Coketown are, up to a certain point, relevant:\nwe have already encountered them in Andre\u00e6\u2019s Christianopolis. There is\nno need to dismiss the good that lies inside of industrialism because\nit does not embrace the good that lies beyond it.\n\nUp to a certain point, then, using mechanical power rather than human\npower is good; so is large-scale production, so is the division of\nlabor and division of operation; so is rapid transportation; so is\nthe accurate methodology of the engineer; and so are various other\nfeatures in the modern industrial world. One might even say a word for\nefficiency, as against \u201cdoing things rather more or less.\u201d Coketown\nmade the horrid mistake of believing that all these things were good in\nthemselves. New factories, for example, drew a bigger population into\nthe city: Coketown did not perceive that, as Plato pointed out, beyond\na certain point the city as a social unit would cease to exist. Bigger\nand better was Coketown\u2019s motto; and it resolutely refused to see that\nthere was no necessary connection between these adjectives. The whole\ncase for and against Coketown rests upon our admission of the phrase\n\u201cup to a certain point.\u201d Up to a certain point, industrialism is good,\nespecially in its modern, neotechnic, electrical phase: Coketown, on\nthe other hand, believes that there is no limit to the usefulness of\nindustrialism.\n\nUp to a certain point--but what point? The answer is, up to the point\nat which the cultivation of a humane life in a community of humane\npeople becomes difficult or impossible.\n\nMen come together, says Aristotle, to live; they remain together in\norder to live the good life. This determination of the good life is\nthe only check and balance that we can have upon Coketown; and it is\nperhaps because we have been so little concerned with it that the\npractical effect of the Coketown idolum has been so devastating.\n\u201cInvention and organization,\u201d as Mr. George Santayana admirably\npoints out, \u201cwhich ought to have increased leisure by producing\nthe necessaries of life with little labor, have only increased the\npopulation, degraded labor, and diffused luxury.\u201d William Morris\nconceived that men in the future might discard many complicated\nmachines because they could live more happily, aye, work more happily\nwithout them. Whether indeed a good part of modern organization and\nmachinery could be scrapt is perhaps a debatable question: but the\npossibility of scrapping it is at least conceivable once we become more\ninterested in the actual result of industrialism upon the life and\nhappiness of the people who are part of the organization than we are in\nthe profits which pile up upon paper, and are finally realized in an\never-growing rubbish heap.\n\n\n10\n\nBy what means can the Country House keep Coketown working for it? The\nidolum of the Country House, which was built up during the Renascence,\nand the idolum of Coketown, which was formed in the early part of the\nnineteenth century, are obviously two separate worlds; and in order\nthat each might be realized in our daily life, it was necessary that\nsome connecting tissue be manufactured to keep them together. This\ntissue was the social myth, the collective utopia, of the National\nState.\n\nThere is a sense in which we may look upon the National State as a\nfact; but that great philosopher of the National State, Mazzini,\nrealized that the National State had continually to be willed; and\nits existence lies plainly, therefore, on a different plane from the\nexistence of a bit of territory, a building, or a city. In fact, it is\nonly by the persistent projection of this utopia for the last three\nor four hundred years that its existence has become credible; for all\nthe minute descriptions which the political historian gives to the\nNational State, its origins and its institutions and its people, read\na good deal like that fine story which Hans Andersen told about the\nking who walked the streets naked because two rascally tailors had\npersuaded him that they had woven and cut up for him a beautiful outfit\nof clothes.\n\nIt will help us to appreciate this beautiful fabrication of the\nNational State if we turn aside for a moment and glance at the actual\nworld as it is known to the geographer and the anthropologist. Here are\nthe physical facts in defiance of which the utopia of nationalism has\nbeen clapped together.\n\n\n11\n\nThe earth that the geographer surveys is divided into five great land\nmasses. These land masses in turn can be broken up into a number of\nnatural regions, each of which has within its rough and approximate\nfrontiers a certain complex of soil, climate, vegetation, and, arising\nout of these, certain primitive occupations which the inhabitants\nof the region originally practiced and later, through the advance\nof trade and invention, elaborated. Between these natural regions\nthere are occasionally frontiers, such as the barrier of the Pyrenees\nwhich separates \u201cFrance\u201d from \u201cSpain\u201d; but these barriers have never\naltogether prevented movements of population from one area to another.\nIn order to have a more faithful knowledge of regional groupings in\ncertain important areas, the reader might with profit consult Professor\nFleure\u2019s Human Geography in Western Europe. (London: Williams and\nNorgate.)\n\nThese natural regions are the groundwork of human regions; that is, the\nnon-political grouping of population with respect to soil, climate,\nvegetation, animal life, industry and historic tradition. In each of\nthese human regions we find that the population does not consist of a\nmultitude of atomic individuals: on the contrary, when the geographer\nplots houses and buildings on a topographic map, he finds that people\nand houses cohere together in groups of more or less limited size,\ncalled cities, towns, villages, hamlets. Normally, a vast amount of\nintercourse takes place between these groupings; and in the Middle\nAge, before the utopia of the National State had been created, the\npilgrim and the wandering scholar and the journeyman and the strolling\nplayer could have been met with on all the highways of Europe. Under\nthe dispensation of the National State, however, the population, as\nthe German economist Buecher points out, tends to be more settled,\nand we transport goods rather than people. It is important to realize\nthat, so far as the geographer can discover, this trade and intercourse\nbetween local groups has been a part of Western European civilization\nsince Neolithic times, at least: it takes place continually between\nindividuals and corporate groups in one place and another, and as far\nas geographical facts are concerned might more easily exist between\nDover and Calais, let us say, than between Calais and Paris.\n\nNow the interesting thing about the utopia of the National State is\nthat it has only the most casual relation to the facts of geography.\nWherever it suits the purposes of the Guardians of the State, the facts\nare ignored, and an artificial relation is _willed_ into existence.\nThe human communities which the regional sociologist recognizes do not\nalways coincide with those which the statesman wishes to incorporate as\n\u201cnational territory,\u201d and when this conflict occurs, the idea rather\nthan the reality triumphs, if necessary by brute force.\n\nIn the utopia of the National State there are no natural regions; and\nthe equally natural grouping of people in towns, villages and cities,\nwhich, as Aristotle points out, is perhaps the chief distinction\nbetween man and the other animals, is tolerated only upon the fiction\nthat the State hands over to these groups a portion of its omnipotent\nauthority, or \u201csovereignty\u201d as it is called, and permits them to\nexercise a corporate life. Unfortunately for this beautiful myth, which\ngenerations of lawyers and statesmen have labored to build up, cities\nexisted long before states--there was a Rome on the Tiber long before\nthere was a Roman Imperium--and the gracious permission of the state is\nsimply a perfunctory seal upon the accomplished fact.\n\nInstead of recognizing natural regions and natural groups of people,\nthe utopia of nationalism establishes, by the surveyor\u2019s line, a\ncertain realm called national territory, and makes all the inhabitants\nof this territory the members of a single, indivisible group, the\nnation, which is supposed to be prior in claim and superior in power\nto all other groups. This is the only social formation that is\nofficially recognized within the national utopia. What is common to\nall the inhabitants of this territory is thought to be of far greater\nimportance than any of the things that bind men together in particular\ncivic or industrial groups.\n\nLet us look at this world of national utopias. The contrast between\nthe politician\u2019s map and the geographer\u2019s would be little less than\namazing were our eyes not used to it, and were we not taught in modern\ntimes to look upon it as inevitable. Instead of the natural grouping\nof land masses and regions, one finds a multitude of quite arbitrary\nlines: boundaries like those that separate Canada and the United States\nor Belgium and the Netherlands are just as frequent as the natural\nfrontier of sea that surrounds England. Sometimes these national\nterritories are big, and sometimes they are little; but the bigness of\nempires like those of France, England, or the United States is not due\nto any essential identity of interests between the sundry communities\nof these empires, but to the fact that they are forcibly held together\nby a political government. National lines, in other words, continue to\nexist only as long as the inhabitants continue to act in terms of them;\nare ready to pay their taxes to support customs bureaux, immigration\noffices, frontier patrols, and educational systems; and are prepared,\nin the last extremity, to lay down their lives to prevent other groups\nfrom crossing these imaginary lines without permission.\n\nThe chief concern of the national utopia is the support of the central\ngovernment, for the government is the guardian of territory and\nprivilege. The principal business of that government is to keep the\nterritory properly defined, and to increase its limits, when possible,\nso as to make the taxable area larger. By stressing the importance of\nthese concerns, and constantly playing up the dangers of rivalry from\nother national utopias, the State builds a bridge between the Country\nHouse and Coketown, and persuades the workers in Coketown that they\nhave more in common with the classes that exploit them than they have\nin common with other groups within a more limited community. It would\nseem that this reconciliation of Coketown and the Country House is\nlittle less than miraculous, even as an ideal; and perhaps it would be\ninteresting to examine a little more carefully the apparatus by which\nthis is effected.\n\n\n12\n\nThe chief instrument of the National State is Megalopolis, its biggest\ncity, the place where the idolum of the National Utopia was first\ncreated, and where it is perpetually willed into existence.\n\nIn order to grasp the quintessential character of Megalopolis we must\nshut our eyes to the palpable earth, with its mantle of vegetation\nand its tent of clouds, and conceive what might be made of the human\nlandscape if it could be entirely fabricated out of paper; for the\nultimate aim of the Megalopolis is to conduct the whole of human life\nand intercourse through the medium of paper.\n\nThe early life of a young citizen in Megalopolis is spent in acquiring\nthe tools by which paper may be used. The names of these tools\nare writing, reading, and arithmetic; and once upon a time these\nconstituted the main elements in every Megalopolitan\u2019s education.\nThere was, however, a good deal of dissatisfaction, on paper,\nagainst this somewhat barren curriculum, and so at a fairly early\ndate in the history of Megalopolis, various other subjects, such as\nliterature, science, gymnastics, and manual training were added to\nthe curriculum--on paper. It is indeed possible for a Megalopolitan\nstudent to know the atomic formula of clay without ever having seen it\nin the raw earth, to handle pine wood in the workshop without having\nwalked through a pine forest, and to go through the masterpieces of\npoetic literature without having experienced a single emotion which\nwould prepare him to appreciate anything different from one of the\ninfluential Megalopolitan magazines, \u201cSmutty Stories\u201d, but as long as\nhis hours of attendance can be recorded on paper, and as long as he can\ngive a satisfactory account of his studies on an examination paper, his\npreparation for life is practically complete; and so he is graduated\nwith a paper certificate of education into the industries of Coketown,\nor into the multitudinous bureaus of Megalopolis itself.\n\nThe end of this period of paper tutelage is but a prelude to its\ncontinuation in another form; for the religious care of paper is\nthe Megalopolitan\u2019s life work. The daily newspaper, the ledger, the\ncard index are the means by which he now makes contact with life,\nwhilst the fiction magazine and the illustrated paper are the means\nby which he escapes from it. Through the translucent form of paper\nknown as celluloid, it has been possible to do away on the stage\nwith flesh-and-blood people; and therefore the drama of life, as the\nMegalopolitan story writers tell it, can be enacted at one remove\nfrom actuality. Instead of his travelling, the world moves before the\nMegalopolitan, on paper; instead of his venturing forth on the highways\nof the world, adventure comes to him, on paper; instead of his getting\nhim a mate, his bliss may be all but consummated--on paper. In fact,\nso accustomed does the Megalopolitan become to experiencing all his\nemotions on paper that he can be entertained by the representation of\na static bowl of flowers on a moving picture screen; while his cockney\nignorance of nature is so vast that a certain vaudeville performer,\nseeking to amuse him by imitating the calls of birds and beasts, finds\nit wise to have moving pictures taken of the rooster, the dog, and the\ncat, in order to give his mimicries reality in minds destitute of any\npersonal image.\n\nThe notion of direct action, direct intercourse, direct association,\nis a foreign one to Megalopolis. If any action is to be taken by the\nwhole community, or by any group in it, it is necessary to carry it\nthrough the Megalopolitan parliament, and have it established on paper,\nafter innumerable people, who have no genuine concern in the matter,\nhave committed their views about it to paper. If any intercourse is\nto be carried on, it must be largely conducted on paper; and if that\nmedium is not directly available, subsidiary instruments, like the\ntelephone, are used. The chief form of association in Megalopolis is\nthat by political party, and it is through the political party that the\nMegalopolitan expresses his views, on paper, as to what is necessary\nto amend the paper constitution or promote the welfare of the paper\ncommunity; albeit he realizes that the promises made by political\nparties are written on what Megalopolitans in their more cynical\nmoments call \u201cnon-negotiable\u201d paper, and will probably never pass into\ncurrency.\n\nBy its traffic in Coketown\u2019s multifarious goods and by its command over\ncertain kinds of paper known as mortgages or securities, Megalopolis\nensures a supply of real foods and real staples from the countryside.\nThrough incessant production of books, magazines, newspapers,\nboilerplate features, and syndicated matter, Megalopolis ensures that\nthe idolum of the National Utopia shall be kept alive in the minds of\nthe underlying inhabitants of the country. Finally, by the devices of\n\u201cnational education\u201d and \u201cnational advertising\u201d all the inhabitants\nof the National Utopia are persuaded that the good life is that which\nis lived, on paper, in the capital city; and that an approximation to\nthis life can be achieved only by eating the food, dressing in the\nclothes, holding the opinions, and purchasing the goods which are\noffered for sale by Megalopolis. So the chief aim of every other city\nin the National Utopia is to become like Megalopolis; its chief hope\nis to grow as big as Megalopolis; its boast is that it is another\nMegalopolis. When the denizens of Megalopolis dream of a better world,\nit is only a paper perfection of that National Utopia which Edward\nBellamy looked forward to in Looking Backward.\n\nWorking in connection with the Machine Process of Coketown, the\nMegalopolis erects a standard of life which can be expressed in\ncommercial terms, on paper, even if it does not offer any tangible\nsatisfaction in goods and services and perfections. The chief boast\nof this standard is its uniformity; that is, its equal applicability\nto every person in the community without respect to his history, his\ncircumstances, his needs, his actual rewards. Hence such goods as\nMegalopolis creates in profusion are for the most part in the line of\nplumbing and sanitary devices which, if they do not exactly heighten\nthe joy of living, at any rate make the routine of Megalopolitan life a\nlittle less formidable.\n\nThe total result of these standards and uniformities is that what was\noriginally a fiction in time becomes a fact. Whereas the inhabitants of\nthe national utopia may originally have been as diverse as the trees\nin a forest, they tend to become, under the influence of education\nand propaganda, as similar as telegraph poles along a road. It is\nnot a little to the credit of Megalopolis that the National Utopia\nhas pragmatically justified itself. It has created the sort of mental\nenvironment on paper which is necessary to a smooth adjustment of\nCoketown and the Country House. What is Megalopolis, in fact, but a\npaper purgatory which serves as a medium through which the fallen sons\nof Coketown, the producer\u2019s hell, may finally attain the high bliss of\nthe Country House, the consumer\u2019s Heaven?\n\n\n13\n\nIt should be plain that in describing the National Utopia and\nMegalopolis I have been trying to outline what Plato would call the\npure form. It is equally clear, I trust, that the pure form is an\nidolum to which any existing national state or metropolis approximates\nonly so far as the idolum does not conflict too grossly with the\nreal men and women, the real communities, the real regions, the real\nworkaday occupations which continue, despite the reign of these idola,\nto exist, and to occupy our main attention. Formal education has not\naltogether taken the place of vital education; loyalty to the state\nhas not altogether succeeded as a substitute for deeper allegiances\nand affiliations: occasionally, here and there, people meet each other\nface to face, they eat real food, dig in real earth, smell real flowers\ninstead of coal tar perfumes that arise from paper bouquets, and embark\nquite madly on real love affairs. It is true that these realities are\na disturbing influence: they are always threatening to undermine the\nidola which the politicians and journalists and academic handymen\nunite so valiantly to build up; but there they are--and even the most\nstubborn idealist cannot help himself from occasionally confronting the\nworld that he denies!\n\nIf you and I were perfect citizens of Megalopolis, we should never\nlet anything come between us and our loyalty to the State: when the\nState called for our taxes, we should never think regretfully of the\namusements we must forego in order to pay them; when the State demanded\nthat we go to war, nothing like the claims of a family or an occupation\nor a moral conviction would ever step between us and our national duty.\nBy the same token, we should never eat any other food than that which\nhad been nationally advertized, and never buy anything direct from\nthe producer when we might buy it from a third person in Megalopolis;\nwe should never read any literature that is not produced in our own\ncountry, never desire any other climate than our own country can\nboast, and never seek to find in any other culture, remote in space or\ntime, the things which we seem to miss in our own environment. If only\nthis utopia of nationalism could be realized completely it would be\nself-sufficient; and there would be nothing on earth, in heaven, or in\nthe waters over the earth which did not bear the authentic trademark of\nMegalopolis.\n\n\n14\n\nThe picture of the National Utopia that I have drawn is perhaps a\nlittle too black to stand out clearly; and I must now add a few high\nlights for definition.\n\nAs in Coketown, there was a point up to which efficiency in mechanical\nproduction was a good thing, so in the national utopia there is a\npoint up to which uniformity is a good thing. The National State\nseems historically to have arisen in some part through the relief\nwhich the people of the Middle Age experienced in being able to travel\nunder the protection of the King\u2019s law along the King\u2019s highway, and\ntheir discovery that common laws and customs, common weights and\nmeasures, were on the whole an advantage over a multitude of senseless\nirregularities which continued to exist in particular neighborhoods.\nIt was a distinct triumph for the good life when the men of London and\nthe men of Edinburgh, let us say, realized that they had something in\ncommon as citizens of a single country, and emphasized the likenesses\nwhich bound them as men rather than the antagonisms that separated them\nas cities. If the National State erected barriers of trade against\nother countries, it at any rate broke down barriers that had long\nexisted in even more limited regions, and that have long continued to\nexist in certain cities in Italy and France. So much is to the good.\n\nBut uniformity is not a good in itself. It is a good only in so far\nas it promotes association and social intercourse. In breaking down\nminor barriers, the State created major ones, and it created national\nuniformities in regions where they were meaningless. Moreover,\nnationalism is inimical to cultural unity, and it perpetuates\nirrelevant conflicts in the Kingdom of the Spirit where there should\nbe neither slave nor free, neither white nor black, neither citizen\nnor outlander. As a matter of fact, the two great international\ncultural vehicles of the Middle Age--the Latin Language and the Roman\nChurch--were broken down by the propagation of a National Language,\nthat spoken at the National Capital, and a National Church, that which\nwas subservient to the State; and nothing that nationalism has done\nsince has repaired this loss. On one hand, the idolum of the National\nState is too narrow, because the world of culture is man\u2019s common\ninheritance, and not the mere segment of it which is called \u201cnational\nliterature\u201d or \u201cnational science.\u201d And on the other hand, the idolum\nis too big, for the reason that there is no bond except a paper one\nbetween men who are as far apart as Bermondsey and Bombay, or New York\nand San Francisco. The temporal community, as Auguste Comte finely\npointed out, is local, restricted, and multiform; this is its essential\nnature and limitation. The spiritual community is universal. It was a\ngreat cultural misdemeanor when the National Utopia, in its extension\nas imperialism, sought to make the spiritual community restricted and\nthe temporal community universal; and it is this heresy to the good\nlife which makes all the pretensions of the national utopia so shabby\nand insincere.\n\n\n15\n\nIf Coketown and the Country House and the National Utopia had\nremained on paper, they would doubtless be entertaining and edifying\ncontributions to our literature. Unfortunately, these social myths\nhave been potent; they have given a pattern to our lives; and they are\nthe source of a great many evils that threaten, like stinking weeds,\nto choke the good life in our communities. It is not because these\nmyths are utopias that I have been criticizing them so assiduously; it\nis rather because they continue to work such wholesale damage. Hence\nit has seemed worth while to point out that they are on pretty much\nthe same level of reality as the Republic or Christianopolis. We may\nperhaps approach our social institutions a little more courageously\nwhen we realize how completely we ourselves have created them; and how,\nwithout our perpetual \u201cwill to believe\u201d they would vanish like smoke in\nthe wind.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER ELEVEN\n\n  How we reckon up accounts with the one-sided utopias of the\n      partisans.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER ELEVEN\n\n\n1\n\nThere have been many periods when men did not think it possible to make\nlife in the community reach much higher levels than it had attained,\nwithout working a change upon human nature. The working of this\nchange has been one of the chief preoccupations of religion; but no\none can pretend that it has met, during the historic period, with any\noverwhelming success. In the eighteenth century men became impatient\nwith the ministrations of institutional religion, and sought to effect\nan improvement in the common life by a different method--by improving\nthe political, economic, and social mechanisms of society.\n\nUp to this time the only method that had seemed feasible for improving\nthe technique of social organization was the mandate of law. Although\nAristotle, for instance, predicted that slavery would come to an end\non the condition that the shuttle should weave by itself and the lyre\nplay without human hand, no one in the Greek community of his time saw\nvery much likelihood of improvement through mechanical inventions or\nwholesale innovations in agriculture; and no one, apparently, concerned\nhimself seriously with the mechanical side of affairs.\n\nIt was the same during the Middle Age. If the men of that time were\nnot exuberantly happy over their civilization, they had the dogmatic\nconviction that nothing very satisfactory could come of a race that had\ninherited the curse of Adam--a race whose only salvation could come\nwhen its individuals were purged one by one of sin, and delivered,\nby the intercession of the saints and the grace of God, into a more\nbenignly constituted afterworld. One might relieve the pressure a\nlittle if the shoe pinched, perhaps, but scarcely anyone dreamed of\ntravelling in seven-league boots, or of establishing an Arcadia in\nwhich boots could be dispensed with. It was foolish to look for a more\nperfect society in a world that was rife with imperfect men.\n\nThe Renascence, as we have seen, changed all this. Presently a school\nof philosophers followed on the heels of the utopians who devoted\nthemselves to preparing fairly minute plans and specifications for the\nsocial order. In the beginning, these plans were devoted to politics\nand criminal reform, like those of Rousseau, Beccaria, Bentham,\nJefferson, Godwin, and the eighteenth century reformers generally;\nin the nineteenth century the main accent was economic, and a number\nof movements arose which could be traced back to the semi-scientific\ninvestigations of Adam Smith, Ricardo, Proudhon, Malthus, Marx, and\nperhaps half a dozen other thinkers of outstanding importance, among\nwhom we should perhaps include such latter day figures as Mill,\nSpencer, and Henry George.\n\nAll of these thinkers have in one way or another influenced our\nthoughts and deflected our actions; and if one adds to this galaxy the\nreforming elements which remained in the churches and the missionary\nbrotherhoods and the philanthropic organizations, we can observe,\ngrowing up in the nineteenth century, a multitude of partisan\norganizations and movements, each of which is strenuously bent on\nrealizing its private and partisan utopia. It is these private and\npartisan utopias that I purpose to make a slight reckoning with in the\npresent chapter; but the field is such a huge and formidable one that I\nshall limit my criticism in the main to those that attempted to effect\na change in the economic order.\n\n\n2\n\nFor all the activities that men engage in we have separate words. This\nis a great misfortune; for in using these words we tend to believe\nthat each action takes place in a separate compartment. Instead of\nbeginning with a whole man interacting in a whole community, we are\nlikely to consider only a partial man in a partial community, and by a\nmental sleight of hand, before we know it, we have let the part stand\nfor the whole. It is this sort of abstraction, I believe, that has been\nresponsible for a good deal of fallacious thinking with regard to the\nplace of industry in the community. The economists seem to have made\nthe error first by talking of a creature whom they called the Economic\nMan, a creature who had no instincts but those of construction and\nacquisition, no habits but of working and saving, and no other ultimate\npurpose than to become such a captain of industry as would make him a\ncandidate for the biographic sketches of Mr. Samuel Smiles, and his\npresent successors in the newspapers and popular magazines.\n\nNow this Economic Man was the embodiment of honest labor and rapacious\ngreed. Out of the better quality, Karl Marx painted the picture of\nthe faithful laborer in Coketown whose masters swindled him out of\nthe \u201csurplus value\u201d he produced; out of the worse quality classical\neconomists like Ricardo painted an equally entrancing picture of the\nbeneficent capitalist, through whose foresight, organizing ability,\nand boldness business could be conducted on a scale a simpler age had\nscarcely dreamed of. It was out of these conceptions, as they were\nelaborated and rationalized in books like Porter\u2019s Progress of the\nNineteenth Century and Marx\u2019s Capital, that there grew up the notion\nthat the only fundamental problem in the modern world was the labor\nproblem--the problem as to who should control industry, who should\nprofit by its advances, and who should own the complicated instruments\nby which it was conducted.\n\nOur business here is not to examine the various programs that were\noffered during the last century in answer to these problems; merely\nto catalog them with the barest explanation of their purpose would be\nan imposing task, were it not for the fact that it has been neatly\ndone for us by Mr. Savel Zimand. It is enough to see here the common\nelement in capitalism, copartnery, State Socialism, Guild Socialism,\nCo-operation, Communism, Syndicalism, the One Big Union, Trades\nUnionism, and the like; whether these movements represent actual facts,\nlike capitalism, copartnery, or trades unionism, or whether they are\nsimply projections, like Syndicalism and the One Big Union.\n\nIf our excursion through the classic utopias has been of any use, it\nmust have shown us how pathetic is this notion that the key to a good\nsociety rests simply on the ownership and control of the industrial\nplant of the community. Is it any less absurd when we confess that\nmost of the movements which were founded upon this assumption were\nactuated by generous and humane motives, and that Francis Place, the\ntailor of Charing Cross, who believed in a radical application of\nlaissez faire principles, was just as sincere a believer in the common\nweal as Karl Marx, who predicted a dictatorship of the proletariat?\nIf a great many of these programs have had the notion that industrial\nmachinery, under socialism or guildism or co-operation was to be used\nfor the common benefit, what was lacking was any common notion as to\nwhat the common benefit was.\n\nAll that was common to these partisan utopias was a desire to get rid\nof positive evils such as overwork or starvation or irregularity of\nemployment. In their rejection of the existing order of Coketown, with\nits rubbish heaps for the disposal of material waste, and its jails,\nhospitals, sanatoria, doss houses, Salvation Army Headquarters, and\ncharitable organizations for the disposal of the human excrement of\nindustrialism--in turning their backs upon these things and asserting\nthe simple elements of human dignity, all our radical programs were\nright and inevitable. To reject what industrial society had to offer\nits members in the filthy factory districts and wretched slums of\nCoketown was obviously to reject barbarism and degradation of the worst\nsort: the incredible thing about the industrial revolution, indeed,\nis not that there were a few riots here and there against the use of\nmachinery, but that the industrial population has not been in a state\nof continual insurrection, and that the industrial towns have not been\nlooted and razed again and again. It is nothing less than a tribute\nto the fundamental good nature and sweetness of human beings that the\nstrikes by which the workers have expressed their sense of grievance\nhave not demolished the material hovels that today stand upright in the\nvalleys of York-Riding, in the valleys of the Ohio and its tributaries,\nor in that terrible slum which stretches in back of the Jersey meadows\nfrom Elizabeth into Patterson. There are many districts in these areas\nwhich are scarcely worth the respect of orderly demolition. To give a\ngrim rejection to the society that produced them only mildly meets the\nsituation. They should be destroyed by trumpets and God\u2019s wrath--like\nJericho!\n\nSo much for what is sound and valid in the various one-sided programs\nfor reform. But if their attitude towards the past performances of\nindustrialism was sound, their gesture towards the future, and their\nattitude towards the whole milieu, was little less than indifferent.\nThere were to be certain gains in money wages, in political control,\nin the distribution of products, and so forth; but the realization\nof these gains was never projected in any very vivid way--a vague\nfellowship in peace and plenty under gay red banners was all that was\nleft over when the current efforts to \u201ceducate the masses,\u201d \u201crevise the\nconstitution,\u201d or \u201corganize the revolution\u201d were taken for granted.\n\nIn his Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Friedrich Engels made a plea\nfor a realistic method of thought, which limited itself to a here and\nnow, as against what he derided as the utopian method, the attempt\non the part of a single thinker to give a detailed picture of the\nsociety of the future. Yet at the present time it is easy to see that\nif the utopian socialism of Owen has been ineffective, the realistic\nsocialism of Marx has been equally ineffective; for while Owen\u2019s kind\nof socialism has been partly fulfilled in the co-operative movement,\nthe dictatorship of the proletariat rests upon very shaky foundations,\nand such success as it has had is due perhaps as much to Marx\u2019s\nliterary picture of what it would be like as to anything else. I do not\ndoubt that the partisan movements have achieved many specific gains;\nconsumer\u2019s co-operation alone has in England measurably lightened the\nphysical burden of existence for a great many people. Their weakness\nconsists in the fact that they have not altered the contents of\nthe modern social order, even when they have altered the method of\ndistribution; and in addition, a good many of these partisan utopias,\nfor lack of any definite and coherent scheme of values, crumble away\nas soon as they meet the opposition of such powerful collective\nutopias as Coketown or the Country House. In America, particularly,\nthe labor movement is paralyzed by this perpetual movement into the\nbourgeoisie--concretely speaking, into Suburbia and the Country\nHouse--and in Great Britain much the same sort of dereliction can be\nobserved within the narrower group from which the leaders of the trades\nunions and the Labor Party are drawn.\n\nHence also the less interesting problem of the Tired Radical, which\nMr. Walter Weyl suggestively outlined. There is indeed a pertinent\ncriticism of the paper environment of Megalopolis, in the tenacious way\nin which people continue to cling to abstract programs and to movements\nwhich never approach perceptibly nearer their fulfillment. The marvel\nis that the concrete utopia of the Country House has not exercised a\nmore potent influence than it actually does. When one compares the vast\namount of agitation during the last century--the Chartist Movement,\nthe Socialist Movement, the International Peace Movement--with the\nactual results in the reconstruction of work, place, and people, or\nwith the actual effects any reconstruction has had upon our polity,\nour culture, our art--it is surprising that these movements have had\nany effective claim upon our allegiance. Men will indeed work for an\nidea--the notion that they will not is a superstition--but sooner or\nlater the spirit must be made manifest in the flesh, and if it never\ncomes to birth, or at best is an abortion, the idea is bound to wither\naway.\n\nHow long would the parliamentary clatter of socialism have mechanically\nkept on--had it not been for the dislocation of war? How long could\nits abstract programs have remained in the air, before coming down to\nspecifications? I obviously cannot answer these questions; but it seems\nplain enough that our radical programs have had simply a sentimental\ninterest: they moved people without giving them a specific task, they\nstirred them emotionally without giving them an outlet, and so, at\nbest, they are but partial utopias of escape, using the powers of\norganization, collective meetings, and pronunciamentos to take the\nplace of the emotional stimuli which the avowed utopia of escape, like\nNews from Nowhere, supplies by introducing a beautiful girl. In this\naspect, the Socialist Party, with its revolutionary demands, did not\ndiffer in its psychological performance from the Republican Party,\nwhich specialized in the rhetorical device of the full dinner pail;\nnor did it differ in any fundamental way from the defunct Progressive\nParty, which for a time believed in a new heaven and earth to follow\nthe initiative, referendum, and recall with an intensity of moral\nconviction beside which the social revolutionist was positively tame.\n\nWho doubts the honesty and sincerity of most of the members of these\nparties? Who doubts their devotion to revolution or \u201cuplift\u201d? It is\nall beside the point. A machine which doesn\u2019t work because it is badly\nconstructed is just as useless as one that doesn\u2019t work because its\nmaker is a deliberate fraud; and all the sincerity and good will and\nhonesty doesn\u2019t make any one a smile the happier. It is about time that\nwe faced the facts and realized that in all our sundry mechanisms of\nreform \u201cthere is a screw loose somewhere.\u201d This pregnant metaphor of\nthe industrial age is usually applied to neurotic disorder; and I am\nusing it in the present context with fell intentions. I mean that the\nutopia of the partisan is, psychologically speaking, a fetish; that\nis to say, it is an attempt to substitute the part for the whole, and\nto pour into the part all the emotional content that belongs to the\nwhole. When a man gets hold of a lady\u2019s handkerchief or garter, and\nbehaves towards that object with as much intensity and interest as he\nwould towards its flesh and blood owner, the handkerchief or garter is\nsaid to be a fetish. I hazard the judgment that Socialism, Prohibition,\nProportional Representation, and the various other abstract \u201cisms\u201d are\nthe fetishes of the partisan: they are attempts to make some particular\ninstrument or function of the community stand for the whole. It is\ndoubtless much easier to filch a handkerchief than to win a girl.\nBy the same token, it is easier to concentrate on the use of liquor\nor the ownership of machinery and land than upon the totality of a\ncommunity\u2019s activities. It is easier indeed; but it is fatal; for the\nresult of this fetishism is perhaps that the girl remains unmated, and\nthe society fails to undergo any fundamental change. Moreover, the\nreforming elements in society become incapacitated by their practice\nof fetishism to take a normal part in the community\u2019s activities; and\nremain so much waste material--at best, they wander between two worlds,\n\u201cone dead, the other powerless to be born.\u201d\n\nWe know these disoriented reformers, these disillusioned\nrevolutionaries, these tired radicals; we could mention names if it\nwere not so needless and so cruel. Apart from anything else, their\noriginal mistake was to keep their problem within the compartment of\npolitics and economics, instead of venting it to the wide world. They\nforgot that the adjustment of some single activity or institution,\nwithout respect to the rest, begged the very difficulty they were\ntrying to overcome. If they were anti-militarists, they saw the world\nsimply as an armed camp; if they were socialists, they saw it as a\ngigantic mechanism of exploitation; and alas! they saw only so much of\nthe world as would conveniently fit within these diagrams. The world\nis perhaps an armed camp and a mechanism of exploitation; it is all\nthat and much more; but any attempt to deal with it on a wholesale plan\nby eliminating all the qualifying elements in the problem is bound to\nencounter the brute nature of things; and if the nature of things is\nessentially antagonistic, the reform itself will fail.\n\nTo say all this is to emphasize the obvious. If any further emphasis\nwere needed it would be necessary only to compare the doctrines of\nMarx, as expounded by Lenin at the beginning of the Russian Revolution,\nand the doctrines of Lenin, as tempered by experience and circumstance\na few years later.\n\n\n3\n\nThere was still another weakness that characterized all the partisan\nutopias of the nineteenth century. That weakness was their externalism.\n\nIf the medi\u00e6val thinkers were convinced that, on the whole, nothing\ncould be done to rectify men\u2019s institutions, while men themselves were\nso easily bitten by corruption, their successors in the nineteenth\ncentury committed the opposite kind of error and absurdity: they\nbelieved that human nature was unsocial and obstreperous only because\nthe church, the state, or the institution of property perverted every\nhuman impulse. Men like Rousseau, Bentham, Godwin, Fourier, and Owen\nmight be miles apart from one another in their criticism of society,\nbut there was an underlying consensus in their belief in human nature.\nThey looked upon human institutions as altogether external to men;\nthese were so many straitjackets that cunning rulers had thrown over\nthe community to make sane and kindly people behave like madmen; and\nthey could conceive of changing the institutions without changing the\nhabits and redirecting the impulses of the people by whom and for whom\nthey had been created. If one devised neat political constitutions,\nwith plenty of checks and balances, or laid out pauper colonies and\ninvited the countryside to make use of them--well, all would be to the\ngood.\n\nThere was, it is true, one great exception to this notion that\ninstitutions might be reformed without, in that process, making over\nmen. I refer to the belief in education which accompanied these\nclassic criticisms of human institutions; for this seems to point to\na perception that men needed a special training and discipline before\nthey could enter freely into the life of a reconstituted community. But\nupon examination, this exception melts away. The emphasis in the new\nprograms of education was upon the formal, institutional acquirement\nof the apparatus of knowledge; and they, too, began with the clean\nslate of a new generation, whereas the critical difficulty was that\nof getting the adult community sufficiently educated, in a realistic\nsense, to be able to make over its educational institutions; and in\nthis respect the reformers were just as much in Cuckooland as--well,\nCampanella. So it follows that the Country House and Coketown shared\nhonors in building up the new educational organizations; and the\noutcome of the sort of education that the public school and college\nprovided was to make these redoubtable utopias practically unassailable.\n\nBesides, there were the adults: consider Robert Owen!\n\nRobert Owen, one of the most sanguine advocates of popular education,\nwas himself a living example of the need for a different kind of\ndiscipline than his narrow and homiletic mind, with its childish\ninterpretation of religious belief and its equally childish\nrationalism, was capable of framing. No one ever frustrated so many\ngood ideas, from the plan of garden cities down to the project for\nco-operative production than this same Owen, whose bumptiousness,\narrogance, and conceit were bound to provoke reactions in other people\nwhich would have defeated the plans of Omnipotence itself. The capital\ndifficulty was to get any sort of social improvement in a world that\nwas full of refractory Owens. A locomotive may, in a sense, be a more\nperfect thing than the man who made it; but no social order can be\nbetter than the human beings who take part in it; for whereas the\nlocomotive can stand apart from its operatives and perform all its\nfunctions effectively even if the workers themselves are deficient in\nevery other respect than mechanics, with a social order the product and\nthe producer continue to be one.\n\nNot merely does a community need a Buddha, let us say, before it\ncan produce Buddhism; it needs a whole succession of Buddhas if the\nreligion itself is not to fritter away into the hideous ecclesiastical\ngrind it became in Thibet. This principle has a general application.\nThe social critics of the last century confused the mechanical problem\nof transforming an institution or of creating a new organization\nwith the personal and social problem of spurring people to effect\nthe transformation and see it through. Their tactics were those of\na general who would go into battle without training his army; their\nstrategy was that of the demagogue who talks of a million armed men\nspringing up overnight. The personal problem, the problem of education,\nwas as easy as that!\n\nIf we are to account for the poverty of our achievements in renovating\nthe community, in contrast with the enormous amount of quite\njustifiable economic and political agitation, research, and criticism,\nit is perhaps not altogether fair to put the entire burden of failure\nupon the partisan\u2019s lop-sided utopia. The plans of our reformers have\nindeed been weak and jerrybuilt in themselves; but that is not all.\nWhat has perhaps been even more conspicuously lacking has been people\nwho are accessible to the existing knowledge, people whose minds have\nbeen trained to play freely with the facts, people who have learned the\nfine and exacting art of co-operating with their fellows; people who\nare as critical of their own mental processes and habits of behavior as\nthey are of the institutions they wish to alter. As Viola Paget says:\n\u201cThe bulk of thinking and feeling intended to help on human improvement\nhas not really been good enough for the purpose. Not good enough in the\nsense of not sufficiently impersonal and disciplined.\u201d\n\nBetween our programs, our utopias, and their fulfillment there has\nusually dropt a thick veil of personalities; and were the plan itself\nthe collaborate product of the best minds of the race; as Mr. H.\u00a0G.\nWells satirically pictured in Boon, it would still have to take its\nchances with the wild asses of the devil that human weakness, apathy,\ngreed, lust for power, might release. Walt Whitman said of Carlyle\nthat behind the tally of his work and genius stood the stomach, and\ngave a sort of casting vote. So one may say of every social movement,\nthat behind the tally of its theoretic background and its concrete\nprograms stand human beings--hale and sick, neurotic and stable,\nwell-intentioned and malicious--and give the casting vote.\n\nAnyone who has read an important book, and then met the author, who has\nrespected an apparently significant social movement, and then met the\nleaders behind the scenes, will realize how frequent is the difficulty\nof reconciling theoretic agreement with the inaccessibilities and\nprejudices and repugnances of particular personalities. No one can join\nthe work of even the most trivial sort of committee--be it a delegation\nto shake hands with the Congressman or a body designated to revise the\nrules of a tennis club--without discovering how the work in hand is\nperpetually being balked and diverted by the play of personalities.\n\nIt is not a little significant that popular speech gives the word\n\u201cpersonalities\u201d a derogatory meaning. Again and again the success or\nfailure in large collaborations hinges upon human factors that have no\nbearing on the question at issue. Pope\u2019s satiric words about wretches\nhanging that jurymen may dine touches the point neatly. Our programs\nfor reconstruction that have not reckoned with the perpetual cussedness\nof human nature and have no method for exorcising it are as shallow as\nthose older theologies which sought to make men live in grace without\naltering the social order in which they functioned. Perhaps they could\nlearn something from the story of that ancient agitator who cured the\nblind, the maimed, the sick, and the halt before he bade them enter\ninto the Kingdom of Heaven. Emerson well said in his essay on Man the\nReformer that it was stupid to expect any real or permanent change from\nany social program which was unable to regenerate or convert--these are\nreligious phases for a common psychological phenomenon--the people who\nare to engineer it and carry it through.\n\nIt would be so easy, this business of making over the world, if it\nwere only a matter of creating machinery. There has probably never\nbeen lacking the sort of energy and talent that is needed for this\nsort of work; and at any rate, during the last three centuries, with\nthe growth of technology, the mechanical services at the command of\nour engineers and organizers are huge and adequate. Unfortunately, we\nare still in the same ditch that Carlyle mordantly pointed out in his\nessay on Characteristics: Given a world of knaves, we are trying by\nvarious cunning devices to produce an honesty from their united action.\nI do not share Carlyle\u2019s contempt for human nature in the raw, but he\nis quite right, I believe, in making fun of the superficiality of our\npartisan utopias. These utopias were so concerned to alter the shell\nof the community\u2019s institutions that they neglected to pay attention\nto the habits of the creature itself--or its habitat. That is why\nmechanical devices play such an important part, perhaps, in all these\nutopias, from Jeremy Bentham, with his Panopticon method of reforming\ncriminals, down to the hideous cog-and-wheel utopia of Edward Bellamy.\n\nThe conceptions of human life that our reforming groups have had have\nbeen pretty thin and unsatisfying. Any adequate conception of a new\nsocial order would, it seems to me, include the scenery, the actors,\nand the play. It is a mark of our immaturity that we never seem able to\nget beyond the scene shifting. Our social theorists, in so far as they\nconsider the actors at all, are inclined to treat them as mechanical\npuppets. As for the play itself--the universal drama of courtship\nand trial and adventure and contest and achievement, in which every\nhuman being is potentially the hero or heroine--the play itself has\nhardly entered into their consciousness. Their values have not been\nhuman values: they have been such values as have been authenticated by\ncommerce and industry, values such as efficiency, fair wages, and what\nnot. These, at any rate, have been the immediate objects of effort,\nand if human values hung vaguely in the background, they were to be\nrealized in a distant and unascertainable future. So one often feels\nthat no matter how base and deteriorated the modern community is, it\nnevertheless retains in its totality a greater measure of human values\nthan many of the groups that have attacked its inadequacy have to offer.\n\nAll this comes out pretty plainly in the attitude of the labor groups\ntowards the current situation. Whether they are organized for political\naction or for industrial warfare, their aims are curiously similar.\nIn the very act of contending against the present order, they have\naccepted the ends for which that order stands and have been content to\ndemand simply that they be universalized. This perhaps accounts for the\nessential uncreativeness of the labor movement. By a revolution they do\nnot mean a transvaluation of values: they mean a dilution and spreading\nout of established practices and institutions. There may indeed be\nplenty of excuse for this attitude in any particular situation--a\ngroup of unorganized and semi-destitute workers such as those in many\nAmerican steel plants--but the worst of it is that this attitude\ncharacterizes the more advanced and economically secure groups, and\ncreeps into such ultimate programs as one can deduce from attempts to\ncreate workers\u2019 educational institutions--as if a change in ownership\nor the balance of power would alter the face of Coketown so that its\nfires would no longer burn and its cinders no longer smut.\n\nI have emphasized what is the weakness, as it seems to me, of the\nlabor movement; not because I am necessarily out of sympathy with any\nparticular measure that might be proposed, but because it illustrates\nupon an enormous scale the point which I desire to make. The\nprohibition movement, or the charity organization movement--towards\nboth of which I feel, on the contrary, a cordial antipathy--would\nserve just as well for illustration; for they all have this common\ndistinction: they lack any explicit, consciously projected humane ends\nwhich would make any particular measure that they might offer justified.\n\n\n4\n\nLet me now anticipate the answer which this criticism will probably\nmeet. To some people it will seem that the current movements for\nreform are inevitably secular; that they have no business to concern\nthemselves with the ultimate faith of men; that they inevitably deal\nwith a limited here and now, a dollar more of wages, a drop less of\nliquor, a touch more of uniformity, and so forth. In short, our partial\nutopias need not concern themselves with any of the questions that have\nto do with the life of the spirit.\n\nThe simple answer to this crude philosophy is--so much the worse for\nthem. The breach between the institutions that deal with the material\nlife and those that deal with the ideal life results either in a\ncomplete dissociation, by which each set of institutions becomes\nparalytic and imbecile; or, as so often happens, in a capitulation\nof the spiritual power to the temporal, and its complete engrossment\nin temporal ends. I am aware that these phrases, \u201cspiritual\u201d and\n\u201ctemporal,\u201d have a certain old-fashioned smell; but they precisely\nexpress my meaning: it is plain that every community contains the\ncorresponding institutions--one group being devoted to values and\nthe other to means. When our reforms are not touched by a sense of\nvalues, the result is that purely temporal ends are taken as ultimate,\nand we have such notions as efficiency or organization regarded\nas the very touchstone of social improvement. This is scarcely an\nimprovement over the old order of things, with which we are now so\ndismally familiar--the state in which our values were not fertilized\nby any intercourse with the concrete and actual world about us, and so\nremained remote and sterile. In short, unless our reformers concern\nthemselves with the ultimate values of men, with what constitutes\na good life, they are bound to pander to such immediate faiths and\nsuperstitions as the National State, Efficiency, or the White Man\u2019s\nBurden.\n\n\n5\n\nThere is a final criticism of the partial utopias: our one-sided\nreforms have had this fatal defect--they are one-sided. This\npartisanship was expressed by their relation to the facts upon which\ntheir programs were based, and in their attitude towards the people who\nwere to be affected by them.\n\nThe mood of partisanship has been that of a lawyer who is getting up\nan argument and is looking for such facts as will bolster up his case.\nThat mood is inimical to free and intelligent thought: its object\nis rhetorical triumph. Now it happens that in all the matters which\nintimately concern a community, a person\u2019s attitude towards the facts\nnot merely seems more important than the facts themselves, but seems so\ndeucedly important that the facts are ignored. The attitude of a group\nof Southern whites who will lynch a negro on the report that he has\nraped a white woman before they investigate the truth of the assertion\nis a bestial exaggeration of a very natural human tendency. Men are\nbuilt for action rather than thought; or rather, since thought, on the\npsychologist\u2019s interpretation, is inhibited action, the business of\ninhibition naturally comes a little hard to us; and when we are in a\nplace where we have the rough choice of pushing through the obstacle,\nunder a strong impulse of resentment (instinct of pugnacity) or may\nquietly withdraw from the obstacle, survey it, and frame a plan of\naction to circumvent it, our fundamental impulse is to follow the first\nmode.\n\nIt is easy to see, for example, how the hideous human suffering\nwhich accompanied the growth of the capitalist organization--and\nstill exists!--caused the socialists to concentrate attention upon\nthe subjects of ownership and profits, and long blinded them to the\nspecific problems of organization, distribution, and control within\nthe industries that might be affected by the program of socialization.\nThis concentration upon the particular aspect of a problem, like\nthe concentration upon a particular aspect of the solution, has\nthe weakness of ignoring the total situation, and it too crudely\nsimplifies the difficulties. In their haste to arrive at solutions and\nremedies--for the life of man is short and the needs of the moment are\npressing--the partisans neglect to make a complete tally of the facts;\nand they are too ready to let \u201ccommon knowledge\u201d take the place of a\nthorough investigation of the data.\n\nThis weakness arises out of an almost instinctive tendency towards\npartisanship; and it is one of the reasons that partisanship continues.\nIf nothing else prevents groups from getting together, their failure\nto agree about the facts, and their lack of a method for getting at\nthe facts and focussing them, is responsible. If an examination of\nthe facts did nothing else, it might show at least the impossibility\nof drawing any conclusion from them, and it might warn the partisan\nto step warily. Thus the testimony that was offered for and against\nProhibition came from fairly high authorities on both sides; and if\nthere had been anything like right reason in the strategically stronger\ncamp, it would have convinced those who were interested in the welfare\nof the community that nothing could be wisely done while the very basis\nfor judgment--scientific knowledge as to the place of alcoholic stimuli\nin the life of the human organism--had not been established.\n\nIt is of course conceivable that men will quarrel and split when they\nare fully apprised of the facts: we may well remember the story of\nthe British ambassador who confessed to his French colleague that\nthe reason he did not get on very well with the Americans was that\nboth countries unfortunately spoke the same language; but it is\ninconceivable that they should ever reach an intelligent agreement\nbefore they are in common possession of the facts. By ignoring the\nnecessity for substantiating his claims and assertions the partisan\nfrequently not merely fails to see his whole problem in all its\nimplications, but also prevents any one else from seeing it. Even when\nthe partisan is not intentionally blind, he lacks the discipline which\nis essential to an open-eyed judgment of the case. What that discipline\nmay be I shall attempt to discuss in the next chapter.\n\nThe second weakness of partisanship is that it breaks the community\ninto vertical divisions, and promotes fictitious antagonisms and\nkinships which run against the horizontal affiliations and loyalties of\na man\u2019s life. This tendency was nicely illustrated in a play by Mr. St.\nJohn Ervine, called Mixed Marriage, which dealt with the love affair\nof a young girl and a young man who were separated by the religions\nthat had been handed down by their parents. In Mr. Ervine\u2019s wretched\nlittle Ulster community, these religions served as an excuse to keep\npeople from being friendly and decent to their neighbors. Now it is\nobvious that mating, and making friends with those who have common\ninterests and sentiments, and mixing freely within the whole community,\nare highly important horizontal interests; they tend to unite people\nin a common bond which is fundamental for the reason that these\ninterests and activities are essentially human. The antagonism between\ntwo Christian sects, on the other hand, undermines the good life as a\nwhole, because it insists that there is no other good than a religious\ngood--a good embodied in a pope, or in the practice of scoffing at a\npope--while it is obvious to anyone who has possession of his senses\nthat kissing a pretty girl is good, and having a friendly pipe with\none\u2019s neighbor is good, and that institutions which prevent one from\ndoing these things at appropriate times are perverted and antisocial.\nIt is true that people who emphasize religious interests take \u201chigh\nground,\u201d as the saying is, and that those who value the friendly pipe\nseem by implication to take low ground: but what the partisans fail to\nsee is that there is a good human case for low ground, and that, for\nthe great majority of people it may prove to be not merely the only\npracticable ground, but in its own right a good and sufficient one.\n\nNow for Catholic and Protestant in Mr. St. John Ervine\u2019s play one\nmay substitute Democrat and Republican, White Guard and Red Guard,\nSocialist and Financier, Prohibitionist and anti-Prohibitionist and\nthe results will be just as deplorably the same. There are any number\nof interests in a well-wrought life which lie altogether beyond these\ncategories, and it is the chief misdemeanor of partisanism, as opposed\nto utopianism, that it tends to slight these general interests, and\neither bring them into the service of the \u201cism\u201d or urge that they be\nneglected in devotion to the \u201ccause.\u201d The first method has been used\nby the apostles of nationalism. The National State, recognizing that\nart and culture and science could not be altogether engrossed in the\nstrategy of political warfare, promptly put these goods in the pigeon\nhole labelled national resources. The partisans of the State talked\nabout American science as opposed to German science, of Italian art\nas opposed to French art; and thus emphasized the things which men in\nAmerica had with other Americans in order to mark off more clearly the\nthings they had apart from men of similar interests in other countries.\nThe same thing happened in the Russian communist state, with its\nattempt to set aside the common cultural heritage of mankind at large\nand define a purely proletarian culture. The results in every case are,\nI believe, incurably mischievous; and those who would promote the good\nlife must cease this infantile practice of asserting vainly that \u201cmy\nfather knows more than your father,\u201d \u201cmy mother is more beautiful than\nyour mother\u201d--and so on.\n\nFor the most part the second method has been indefatigably used. In\nthe political state the partisans make a great show of the gulf which\nseparates the political party in power from that which is outside,\nand every other interest in life is supposed to be secondary to this\nabysmal cleavage. In relatively crude communities, like the United\nStates and Ireland, these differences seem to be taken by the great\nmass of people at their face value; whereas in England, which at least\nhas the virtues of disillusion, it is the great tradition of Parliament\nthat all the animosities of the floor are ignored in the bar of the\nHouse of Commons, while all the congenialities and convivialities that\nbind men together are emphasized. Lest I be accused of prejudice where\nnone exists, let me add that in the most substantial reconstruction\nmovement that Ireland possesses--I refer to agricultural co-operation\nas promoted by Sir Horace Plunkett and A.\u00a0E.--the horizontal interests\nwhich bind men together as farmers and members of a local community\nare successfully emphasized to the exclusion of irrelevant vertical\ndifferences, at least in matters touching the organization and conduct\nof the Irish Agricultural Organization Society; and that, as far as\nI can see, this single organization has done more to promote the\ngood life in Ireland than any other institution, with the possible\nexception of the equally non-partisan literary association which grew\nup in Dublin under the leadership of A.\u00a0E., William Butler Yeats, Lady\nGregory, and the rest of that fine and glorious crew.\n\nObviously, it is not altogether for nothing that men have joined\ntogether in vertical organizations which are as broad as a continent,\nlet us say, or the European world. There is a sense in which the\nChristians of Jerusalem have more in common with the Christians of Rome\nthan they have with the Jews and Mohammedans of their local region. In\nthe same way, I find myself more deeply drawn to certain friends of\nmine in Bombay and London than I am towards my next door neighbor,\nwith whom the only recognizable bond is our common animus against a\nrapacious landlord. So long as the vertical affiliation with people of\nthe same views in politics or religion or philosophy is a spiritual\naffiliation a great deal of good may come out of it. When, however,\nthe things that draw people together as members of a vertical group\nare used as a means of inflicting similar opinions or practices upon\nthe local community, without respect to its regional qualities, the\nresults are little less than disastrous. The rain falls on the just and\nthe unjust; more than that, the food that we grow, the houses that we\nbuild, the roads that we lay down, the thoughts that we think, belong\nto us as members of the human species who have inherited the earth and\nthe fullness thereof; and it is absurd to let differences in our idola\nprevent us from participating equally in this common heritage.\n\nAt long last, the things that unite human beings as human beings,\nthe social inheritance that enables them to realize their stature as\nhuman beings, are more important than any particular element that the\npartisan may lay hold of. Whether our partisanism consists in being\nfirst and foremost an American or first and foremost a Theosophist,\nit tends to limit the world with which we may have commerce and so\nimpoverishes the personality. The person who insists upon being a\nhundred per cent. American has by that very emphasis become something\nless than half a man. By fastening attention upon a segment of the\nworld, the partisan creates a segment of a personality. It is these\nsegments or sects that any movement which aims at a general good in the\ncommunity must contend against. So long as work for the common welfare\nmeets with irrelevant partisanisms, so long will we lack the means of\ncreating whole men and women; and so long will the main concerns of\ncivilization be side-tracked.\n\n\n6\n\nWhat a vision these partisan utopias present! They are like the\nscattered bones that the prophet saw in the terrible valley, and one\ndoubts whether even the breath of the Lord could knit them together\nagain into real bodies....\n\nOne of these partisan utopias issues from a bundle of red-tape;\neverything is filed and ticketed and labelled there; and anything in\nlife that cannot be treated in this fashion does not exist. Another\nis a mechanical contraption; somehow it seems to litter little\nmechanical contraptions; and its aim is, it would seem, to do away with\nvegetation and reproduction, so that everything under the sun might be\nperformed with the sterile accuracy of the machine. A third utopia of\nthe partisan calls human beings, with all their color and thickness,\n\u201cindividuals,\u201d and makes the good life a matter of legal relationships\nwithout any regard to their necessities in time and space; such a\nutopia could almost be carried in one\u2019s pocket, so much is it a matter\nof verbal statement. We need not go down the line. Singly, it is plain\nthat not one of these utopias would create a happy community; while if\nall of these partisanisms could be realized the result could scarcely\nbe anything else than discord--such a discord as now exists and every\nday becomes more raucous.\n\nIt would seem that we are at an impasse. Even if I have absurdly\nexaggerated the futility of the reformers and revolutionaries, their\nlack of any fundamental program and their inability to conceive an\nessential reorientation in modern society, come out pretty plainly. If\nour analysis did not prove this, the atmosphere of disillusion which we\nbreathe today, and which permeates every branch of literature, would\ntell as much. In so far as we have accepted the modern social order we\nare in ruin; and the next war that now threatens will, if it actually\ncomes to pass, only carry the ruin a little further. In so far as\nwe have pinned our hopes to current movements for reconstruction or\nrevolution, our plans are sickly and debilitated. In fact, the only\ngenuine signs of life seem to be in regions like Ireland, Denmark,\nIndia, and China, which have stood outside the movement of industrial\ncivilization and have retained the values of an order which elsewhere\nhas been undermined and almost destroyed. It is not a pretty situation\nto face; and small wonder that we are so slow and so reluctant to face\nit. Whichever way we look, bankruptcy seems to threaten us.\n\nIt is time we endeavored to cash in the paper roubles of the partisan.\nIf our civilization is to hold together we must place its intellectual\ncurrency on a new basis; we must exchange our abstract idealisms, our\nabstract programs, our paperized pursuit of happiness for some of the\ngolden coinage of life, even though we cannot have our gold without\nmixing it with baser metals.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER TWELVE\n\n  How the half-worlds go, and how eutopia may come; and what we\n      need before we can build Jerusalem in any green and pleasant\n      land.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER TWELVE\n\n\n1\n\nThe sort of thinking that has created our utopias has placed desire\nabove reality; and so their chief fulfillment has been in the realm of\nfantasy. This is true of the classic utopias that we have surveyed,\nand it is true--though not perhaps quite so apparent--of the partial\nutopias that were formulated by the various reconstruction movements\nduring the last century.\n\nWhile the classic utopias have so far been nearer to reality that\nthey have projected a whole community, living and working and mating\nand spanning the gamut of man\u2019s activity, their projections have\nnevertheless been literally up in the air, since they did not usually\narise out of any real environment or attempt to meet the conditions\nthat this environment presented. This defect has been suggested by the\nvery name of Utopia, for as Professor Patrick Geddes points out, Sir\nThomas More was an inveterate punster, and Utopia is a mock-name for\neither Outopia, which means no-place, or Eutopia--the good place.\n\nIt is time to bring our utopian idola and our everyday world into\ncontact; indeed, it is high time, for the idola that have so far served\nus are now disintegrating so rapidly that our mental world will soon\nbe as empty of useful furniture as a deserted house, while wholesale\ndilapidation and ruin threaten the institutions that once seemed\npermanent. Unless we can weave a new pattern for our lives the outlook\nfor our civilization is almost as dismal as Herr Spengler finds it\nin Der Untergang des Abendlandes. Our choice is not between eutopia\nand the world as it is, but between eutopia and nothing--or rather,\nnothingness. Other civilizations have proved inimical to the good\nlife and have failed and past away; and there is nothing but our own\nwill-to-eutopia to prevent us from following them.\n\nIf this dissipation of Western Civilization is to cease, the first\nstep in reconstruction is to make over our inner world, and to give\nour knowledge and our projections a new foundation. The problem\nof realizing the potential powers of the community--which is the\nfundamental problem of eutopian reconstruction--is not simply a matter\nof economics or eugenics or ethics as the various specialist thinkers\nand their political followers have emphasized. Max Beer, in his History\nof British Socialism, points out that Bacon looked for the happiness of\nmankind chiefly in the application of science and industry. But by now\nit is plain that if this alone were sufficient, we could all live in\nheaven tomorrow. Beer points out that More, on the other hand, looked\nto social reform and religious ethics to transform society; and it is\nequally plain that if the souls of men could be transformed without\naltering their material and institutional activities, Christianity,\nMohammedanism, and Buddhism might have created an earthly paradise\nalmost any time this last two thousand years. The truth is, as Beer\nsees, that these two conceptions are still at war with each other:\nidealism and science continue to function in separate compartments;\nand yet \u201cthe happiness of man on earth\u201d depends upon their combination.\n\nIf we are to build up genuine eutopias, instead of permitting ourselves\nto pattern our behavior in terms of fake utopias like Coketown, the\nCountry House, the National State, and all the other partial and\ninadequate myths to which we have given allegiance, we must examine\nanew the idola which will assist us in reconstituting our environment.\nSo we are forced to consider the place of science and art in our social\nlife, and to discuss what must be done in order to make them bear more\nconcretely upon \u201cthe improvement of man\u2019s estate.\u201d\n\n\n2\n\nThere was a time when the world of knowledge and the world of dreams\nwere not separated; when the artist and the scientist, for all\npractical purposes, saw the \u201coutside world\u201d through the same kind of\nspectacles.\n\nWhat we call \u201cscience\u201d today was in its primitive state part and\nparcel of that common stock of knowledge and belief which makes up a\ncommunity\u2019s literature, or, as Dr. Beattie Crozier would have said, its\n\u201cBible.\u201d The departure of science from this main body of literature\nbegins for the Western World, probably, with the death of Plato and\nthe institution of Aristotle\u2019s collections in natural history; and\nfrom that point onwards the separate sciences, increasingly isolate\nthemselves from the general body of knowledge, and utilize methods\nwhich had been unknown to the earlier philosophers and sages; so that\nby the time the twentieth century dawns the process of differentiation\nhas been completed, and philosophy, once the compendium of the\nsciences, has disappeared except as a sort of impalpable, viscous\nresidue.\n\nWhen Aristotle divided his writing into the exoteric and esoteric\ngroups, into the popular and the scientific, he definitely\nrecognized the existence of two separate branches of literature,\ntwo different ways of taking account of the world, two disparate\nmethods of approaching its problems. The first branch was that of\nthe philosophers, the prophets, the poets, and the plain people. Its\nbackground was the generality of human experience: its methods were\nthose of discussion and conference: its criteria were those of formal\ndialectics: its interests were specifically those of the community,\nand nothing human was foreign to it. With the petrification of\nGreek thought that followed the collapse of the Alexandrian school,\nthe second branch was slow in coming into its own. As late as the\neighteenth century its adherents were called natural philosophers, to\ndistinguish them from the more humane variety; and it is only with the\nnineteenth century that the subject became universally known as science\nand its practitioners as scientists.\n\nIn the Ph\u00e6drus Socrates had expressed the humanist outlook of\nliterature by saying: \u201cTrees and fields, you know, cannot teach me\nanything, but men in the city can.\u201d The shortest way of describing the\nattitude of science is to say that it resolutely turned its back on\nmen in the city and devoted itself to the trees and fields and stars\nand the rest of brute nature. If it paid attention to men at all it\nsaw them--if we may abuse an old quotation--as trees walking. Socrates\nhad said: Know thyself. The scientist said: Know the world that lies\noutside man\u2019s dominion. As science progressed these attitudes became\nmore rigid, unfortunately, and a conflict grew up between literature\nand science, between the humanities and natural philosophy, which\nhas given both art and science the peculiar twist we shall presently\nexamine.\n\nNow the developments in modern science go back, through the Arabic\nthinkers, to ancient Greece; but the great advances that have been\nmade date back scarcely three centuries. On the basis of the precise\nknowledge of physical relations which became available in mathematics,\nphysics, mechanics, and chemistry the startling changes which have been\ncrudely labelled the \u201cindustrial revolution\u201d were carried through. If\nthe essential relationship between the world of ideas and the world\nof action were ever in doubt, the industrial revolution, especially\nin its later phases, would be a final demonstration; for beneath the\nostensible skyscrapers, subways, factories, telephone lines, and sewers\nof the modern industrial city lie the immaterial foundations of western\nphysical science, laid down stone by stone in the remote, theoretic\nresearches of Boyle, Faraday, Kelvin, Leibniz, and the rest of that\ngreat galaxy. With the far reaching effect of the idola of physical\nscience it is hardly necessary to deal. Everyone realizes how dependent\nthe advance in technology has been upon theoretic science, even though\nthe scientist himself, as Kropotkin pointed out, is sometimes slow in\nadmitting the debt of science itself to practical invention. The actual\nworld of machinery is at present, it seems fair to say, a parasite upon\nthis body of knowledge, and it would speedily starve to death if the\nhost were annihilated.\n\nScience has provided the factual data by means of which the\nindustrialist, the inventor, and the engineer have transformed\nthe physical world; and without doubt the physical world has been\ntransformed. Unfortunately, when science has furnished the data its\nwork is at an end: whether one uses the knowledge of chemicals to\ncure a patient or to poison one\u2019s grandmother is, from the standpoint\nof science, an extraneous and uninteresting question. So it follows\nthat while science has given us the means of making over the world,\nthe ends to which the world has been made over have had, essentially,\nnothing to do with science. Accordingly, as I have suggested, the idola\nof the Country House and Coketown and the National State, which were\nbuilt up by literature and art, have given the effective direction to\nthese transformations. So far, science has not been used by people\nwho regarded man and his institutions scientifically. The application\nof the scientific method to man and his institutions has hardly been\nattempted.\n\nEven when one qualifies this last generalization, its outline remains\npretty sharp. The development of what are called the social sciences\nwas dimly outlined in Bacon\u2019s Novum Organon; but it was not till the\neighteenth century, with Quesnay and Montesquieu, that the movement\ngained any real headway, and down to this day a large part of what is\ncalled science in Economics, Politics, and Sociology is only disguised\nliterature--work in which the jargon of science is accepted as a\nsubstitute for the scientific method of arriving at factual truth, and\nin which the effort to mold conduct overwhelms the attempt to reach\ncorrect conclusions. Indeed, among the economists and sociologists\nthere has been a persistent dribble of discussion as to whether or not\ntheir subjects entitled them to the august designation of scientists.\n\nIt is not without reason that the social and human sciences have been\ndistrusted by the devotees of physical science, so that, for example,\nthe British Association has long had a single section devoted to\nthe social sciences in which Sociology, the mother of them all, is\npermitted to enter as a subclassification of Anthropology! The nearer\nthe investigator gets to man, the more easily he is overwhelmed with\nthe complexity of his subject; and the more tempted he is to adopt the\nswift and easy partisan methods of the novelist, the poet, the prophet.\nThe mere concealment of this act of seduction under the rough, grey\ncover of scientific jargon means frequently that the social scientist\nhas added to the offense of not being a good scientist by not even\nbeing a good literary man.\n\nHence there is a great gap between the more external part of the world\nwhich has been affected by science, and that part, nearer to man and\nman\u2019s institutions, which has yet for the greater part to be conquered.\nWhile the physical equipment of New York compares with that of fourth\ncentury Athens as Athens itself would compare with an Aurignacian cave,\nthe life of men in the city is perhaps more disordered and futile and\nincomplete than the author of the Republic found it. The moral of\nthis contrast need hardly be pointed in so many words. The idolum of\nscience is incomplete; for it chiefly touches life in its physical\nsector; and it remains to complete the span so that every activity and\ncondition may be described, measured, and grasped in scientific terms.\nWith the vast modern improvement in our physical arrangements in view,\nit must occur to almost anyone that a permanent advance in social\nlife depends upon a much more thorough and realistic acquaintance with\nthe facts than the social sciences have yet been able to provide.\nBefore an army moves over the land it is well for it to have moved in\nsomeone\u2019s mind over a topographic map. Lacking such maps, all our day\nto day improvements have been wasteful sallies into eutopia, proceeding\nwithout order, without a sufficient equipment, and without any general\nplan.\n\n\n3\n\nThere is a point up to which each science may well be left to cultivate\nits field for its own sake, without any regard for the fruits. Mr.\nThorstein Veblen, in The Place of Science in Civilization, has well\npointed out the way in which science arises out of idle curiosity;\nand science, studied and advanced for its own sake, is surely one of\nthe great playthings of the race. In this aspect, while science seeks\na quite different path to the contemplative life than art takes, its\nend is the same--the dominant interest is an esthetic one, the joy of\npure perception. Science is thus a sort of world in itself, and it is\nself-sufficient: there is no need for it to make contact with the real\nworld in which we fight and love and earn our daily bread. In its own\nworld, science is no better and no worse than theosophy or astrology or\nfables about deity.\n\nBut the divorce of science from the daily life of the community is not\naltogether an advantage. If it fosters a whole-hearted cultivation\nof science for its own values, it tends to lose sight of realities\nwithout which its values are meaningless. It is hard perhaps to locate\nthe point at which science, divorced from every day realities, ceases\nto have any social relevance; but it seems to me that such a point\nexists; and when the sciences remain disparate and unrelated one to\nthe other, they tend to pass over from a public world to the private\nworld of the specialist; and the knowledge which obtains in that world\ncan with difficulty be brought out again to irrigate the common life\nof the community; or if it is brought out, as bacteriology is brought\nout in relation to the treatment of disease, it is divorced from a\nconsideration of the total situation in a way that makes so many\nspecialist advances in medicine, for example, the stamping ground for\nthe fanatic.\n\nThis loss of contact, I believe, is highly dangerous; for it lessens\nthe effect of scientific discipline upon daily affairs quite as much as\na cloistered religion, by erecting impossible sanctions, opens the way\nfor much unalloyed slackness and baseness, and by demanding that Pistol\nand Falstaff live like Christ prevents these biological rapscallions\nfrom achieving so much as the level of Robin Hood. The upshot of this\ndissociation of science and social life is that superstition takes\nthe place of science among the common run of men, as a more easily\napprehended version of reality.\n\nToday the whole corpus of knowledge is in an anarchic state, and it\nlacks order precisely because it lacks any definite relations to\nthe community which creates it, and for which it, in turn, provides\nthe spectacles through which the world is seen. Against the gains\nthat have come from the increasing specialization of the sciences,\nwe have to set off the losses which the community suffers from the\ndevelopment of crude forms of science, and from quackeries like\nastrology and spiritualism which succeed in giving a complete account\nof man\u2019s place in the universe in terms that are fairly intelligible\nto the lay mind. It seems to me, then, that in the cultivation of the\nsciences a definite hierarchy of values must be established which\nshall have some relation to the essential needs of the community. The\nindependence of science from human values is a gross superstition:\nthe desire for order, for security, for esthetically satisfactory\npatterns--along with the desire for fame or the favor of princes--have\nall played their parts in the development of science. Though the logic\nof science may discount the human factor as far as possible in its\ninternal operations, it is because men have placed a certain value upon\ndisinterested intellectual operations that these activities are pursued\nin modern communities to the exclusion of other interests and claims.\n\nLet us put the problem concretely. A community which cultivates\nchemical science to the point at which it is able to wipe out a whole\ncity by a few explosions of poisonous gas is in a pretty treacherous\nsituation. If the science that it possesses has not helped to found a\neutopia, it has at any rate provided the foundations for a kakotopia,\nor bad place: in short, for a hell. Indeed scientific knowledge has\nnot merely heightened the possibilities of life in the modern world:\nit has lowered the depths. When science is not touched by a sense of\nvalues it works--as it fairly consistently has worked during the past\ncentury--towards a complete dehumanization of the social order. The\nplea that each of the sciences must be permitted to go its own way\nwithout control should be immediately rebutted by pointing out that\nthey obviously need a little guidance when their applications in war\nand industry are so plainly disastrous.\n\nWe must be prepared to recognize that \u201ctruths\u201d do not stand together\non a high and lofty pedestal: some are important and some are trivial,\nsome are innocent and some are dangerous, and while the pursuit of\ntruth is a good in itself--_and complete freedom in that pursuit\nis a_ sine qua non _of a good social life_--certain departments of\ninvestigation may need to be offset and corrected by work in other\nfields. In a modern Western European community, a sociological insight\ninto the causes and conditions of war and peace is a needed corrective\nto the crudities of applied physical science and without such\ncorrection the mere increase of scientific knowledge, of which we boast\nso vacuously, may be highly inimical to the practice of the good life\nin the community.\n\n\n4\n\nIf the sciences are to be cultivated anew with respect for a definite\nhierarchy of human values, it seems to me that the sciences must be\nfocussed again upon particular local communities, and the problems\nwhich they offer for solution. Just as geometry in Egypt arose out of\nthe need for annually surveying the boundaries that the Nile wiped\nout, and as astronomy developed in Chaldea in order to determine the\nshift of the seasons for the planting of crops, as geology in modern\ntimes developed out of the questions that a practical stone mason, like\nHugh Miller, found himself confronted with--so may the sciences which\nare today incomplete and partial develop along the necessary lines\nby a survey of existing conditions and intellectual resources in a\nparticular community.\n\nOn one hand, science must be in contact with the whole idolum of\nscientific thought--with that vast overworld of scientific effort which\nis the product of no single place or people or time. On the other\nhand, it must be related to the definite local community, limited in\ntime and in space, in which its researches and its speculations will\nbe realized and applied. Out of these surveys of existing conditions\nwe should find, I believe, that in social psychology, in anthropology,\nin economics there are a vast number of facts and relations which\nremain to be described; and that, similarly, certain departments\nlike craniology and jurisprudence and folklore have been vastly\novercultivated in proportion to any genuine importance that their\nresearches may have upon our control over the community\u2019s development.\nSuch an investigation would bring out, above all, the weakness of\ncontemporary sociological thought, with its diabetic flatulence of\nspecial sociologies, and its lack of any general agreement as to the\nfield which is to be cultivated.\n\nApart from its great function as a plaything, science is valuable\nonly to the extent that its researches can be brought to bear upon\nthe conditions in a particular community, in a definite region. The\ndifference between science as a plaything and science as an instrument\nfor enabling us to establish more effective relations with other men\nand with the rest of our environment, is the difference between firing\na shot at a target and firing at a buck for provender. The practice\none gets in firing at a target is great fun, and incidentally it\nimproves one\u2019s marksmanship; such idle sport is perhaps one of the\nstigmata of a civilized community. Nevertheless, unless one\u2019s skill\ncan be definitely brought home it remains a personal achievement; and\nthe community as a whole is not a pound of meat the better for it. If\nscience is to play the significant part that Bacon and Andre\u00e6 and Plato\nand the other great humanists desired it to, it must be definitely\nbrought home and realized in our here and now.\n\nThe need for this humanization of science has already been perceived in\nGreat Britain. During the last decade a movement has gathered headway\nin the schools and extended itself to associations outside the schools.\nThe title of this movement is \u201cRegional Survey,\u201d and its point of\norigin is, I believe, the Outlook Tower in Edinburgh which was well\ndescribed more than two decades ago as the \u201cworld\u2019s first sociological\nlaboratory.\u201d\n\nThe aim of the Regional Survey is to take a geographic region and\nexplore it in every aspect. It differs from the social survey with\nwhich we are acquainted in America in that it is not chiefly a survey\nof evils; it is, rather, a survey of the existing conditions in all\ntheir aspects; and it emphasizes to a much greater extent than the\nsocial survey the natural characteristics of the environment, as they\nare discovered by the geologist, the zoologist, the ecologist--in\naddition to the development of natural and human conditions in the\nhistoric past, as presented by the anthropologist, the arch\u00e6ologist,\nand the historian. In short, the regional survey attempts a local\nsynthesis of all the specialist \u201cknowledges.\u201d\n\nSuch a survey has been conducted in the Southeastern counties of\nEngland under the auspices of various local scientific societies;\nand the result of it is a complete description of the community\u2019s\nfoundations, its past, its manner of working and living, its\ninstitutions, its regional peculiarities, and its utilization of\nphysical, vital, and social resources. Each of the sciences draws\nupon its general body of knowledge to illuminate the points under\nobservation; and when problems arise which point definitely to the\nlack of scientific or scholarly data, new trails are opened and new\nterritory defined.\n\nIn looking at the community through the Regional Survey, the\ninvestigator is dealing with a real thing and not with an arbitrary\nidolum. In so far as the local community has certain elements in common\nwith similar regions in other countries, or has absorbed elements from\nother civilizations, these things will be given their full value,\ninstead of being disregarded because they weaken the identity of the\nlocal community with that precious myth, the National State. The\ngreater part of the data that is thus brought to light may be plotted\non a map, graphically presented in a chart, or photographed. In Saffron\nWalden, England, there is an admirable little museum devoted to such\nan exhibition of its region; and in the Outlook Tower, at Edinburgh,\nthere used to be a library and an apparatus of exhibition by which one\ncould begin at the point where one was standing and work outwards, in\nthought, to embrace the whole wide world. Knowledge that is presented\nin this fashion is available so that whoever runs may read; it has\nevery feature, therefore, of popular science as it is purveyed in the\ncheap newspaper and magazine, whilst it remains real science and is not\npresented as something that verges from a miracle to a superstition.\n\nThe knowledge embodied in the Regional Survey has a coherence and\npithiness which no isolated study of science can possibly possess. It\nis presented in such a form that it can be assimilated by every member\nof the community who has the rudiments of an education, and it thus\ndiffers from the isolated discipline which necessarily remains the\nheritage of the specialist. Above all, this knowledge is not that of\n\u201csubjects,\u201d taken as so many water tight and unrelated compartments:\nit is a knowledge of a whole region, seen in all its aspects; so that\nthe relations between the work aspect and the soil aspect, between the\nplay aspect and the work aspect, become fairly simple and intelligible.\nThis common tissue of definite, verifiable, localized knowledge is what\nall our partisan utopias and reconstruction programs have lacked; and\nlacking it, have been one-sided and ignorant and abstract--devising\npaper programs for the reconstruction of a paper world.\n\nRegional survey, then, is the bridge by which the specialist whose face\nis turned towards the library and the laboratory, and the active worker\nin the field, whose face is turned towards the city and region in which\nhe lives, may come into contact; and out of this contact our plans and\nour eutopias may be founded on such a permanent foundation of facts\nas the scientist can build for us, while the sciences themselves will\nbe cultivated with some regard for the human values and standards, as\nembodied in the needs and the ideals of the local community. This is\nthe first step out of the present impasse: we must return to the real\nworld, and face it, and survey it in its complicated totality. Our\ncastles-in-air must have their foundations in solid ground.\n\n\n5\n\nThe needed reorientation of science is important; but by itself it is\nnot enough. Knowledge is a tool rather than a motor; and if we know\nthe world without being able to react upon it, we are guilty of that\naimless pragmatism which consists of devising all sorts of ingenious\nmachines and being quite incapable of subordinating them to any\ncoherent and attractive pattern.\n\nNow, men are moved by their instinctive impulses and by such\nemotionally colored pattern-ideas or idola as the dreamer is capable\nof projecting. When we create these pattern-ideas, we enlarge the\nenvironment, so that our behavior is guided by the conditions which we\nseek to establish and enjoy in an imaginary world. However crude the\nMarxian analysis of society may have been, it at least had the merit of\npresenting a great dream--the dream of a titanic struggle between the\npossessors and the dispossessed in which every worker had a definite\npart to play. Without these dreams, the advances in social science\nwill be just as disorderly and fusty as the applications of physical\nscience have been in our material affairs, where in the absence of any\ngenuine scale of values, a patent collar button is regarded as equally\nimportant as a tungsten filament if the button happens to bring the\ninventor as great a financial reward.\n\n\n6\n\nUp to about the middle of the seventeenth century, before modern\nphysical science had rigorously defined its field, the breach between\nliterature and science, which Aristotle had made, was not altogether\ncomplete; and while the humanist ideal was intact both literature and\nscience were regarded as coeval phases of man\u2019s intellectual activity.\nThe two dominating figures of the Renascence, Leonardo da Vinci and\nMichael Angelo, were artists, technicians, and men of science; and in\na comparison between a translation of Michael Angelo\u2019s sonnets and a\nphotograph of St. Peter\u2019s the sonnets come off rather well.\n\nThe great contribution of the Renascence was the ideal of fully\nenergized human beings, able to span life in all its manifestations,\nas artists, scientists, technicians, philosophers, and what not. This\nideal exercised a powerful influence on lesser figures, like the\nAdmirable Crichton and Sir Walter Raleigh, and even down to the time\nof Descartes it contributed to that exuberance of the intellectual\nlife which was the Renascence at its best. When John Amos Comenius\nwrote his remarkable little book called The Labyrinth of the World\nand the Paradise of the Heart in 1623, he combined the outlooks of\nscience and art in a remarkable synthesis; for the first part of this\nwork is a picturesque survey of the actual world as Comenius found\nit, and the second a picture of the transition to the heavenly world\npromised in the Christian religion. The idea behind Comenius\u2019 Labyrinth\nwas the same that inspired Andre\u00e6; and were it not for the complete\notherworldliness of this theological utopia, the Paradise of the Heart,\nComenius\u2019 discourse would take a high place in the history of utopian\nthought.\n\nThere is no genuine logical basis, as far as I can see, in the\ndissociation of science and art, of knowing and dreaming, of\nintellectual activities and emotional activities. The division between\nthe two is simply one of convenience; for both these activities are\nsimply different modes in which human beings create order out of the\nchaos in which they find themselves. Such is the humanist view. As an\ninstance of this, when the Royal Society was projected in England in\nthe middle of the seventeenth century, Johann Andre\u00e6 advised his friend\nSamuel Hartlib, then in London, not to neglect the humanities while\nfurthering the pursuit of the physical sciences. Unfortunately, the men\nwho gathered together to form the Royal Society were specialists in\nphysical science; and in the lapse of the humanist tradition through\nthe religious acerbities of the time, they had lost some of their\ndesire for a complete life. As a result, the original charter of the\nsociety confined its work to the physical sciences.\n\nInsignificant as it now appears in the annals of science, this decision\nseems to me to mark a definite turning point in human thought.\nHenceforth the scientist was to be one sort of person and the artist\nanother; henceforth the idolum of science and the idolum of art were\nnot to be cemented together in a single personality; henceforth, in\nfact, the dehumanization of art and science begins. It is interesting\nto note that with the divorce of the humanities from science, art and\nscience entered upon separate careers which, for all their diversities,\nare curiously similar. Both art and science, for example, ceased to be\nthe common property of the community; and each of them split up into a\nmultiplying host of specialisms. In this process, art and science made\nmany notable advances; so that this period is usually spoken of as a\nperiod of enlightenment or progress; but the result on the community\nwas what we discovered in our examination of Coketown and the Country\nHouse.\n\n\n7\n\nWe must now consider the development of the arts in the modern\ncommunity. At the height of the Middle Age, as in fifth century Athens,\nthe arts formed together a living unity. A citizen did not go into\na concert hall to hear music, to a church to say his prayers, to a\ntheatre to see a play, to a picture gallery to view pictures: it was\na mean town, indeed, that could not boast a cathedral and a couple of\nchurches; and in these buildings, drama and music and architecture and\npainting and sculpture were united for the purpose of ringing changes\non the emotional nature of men and converting them to accept the\ntheological vision of otherworldly utopia.\n\nThe splitting up of these arts into a number of separate boxes was\npart of that movement towards individualism and protestantism whose\neffects most people are familiar with in the field of religion alone.\nHenceforward, music, drama, painting, and the other arts developed\nlargely in isolation; and each of them was forced to build up a\nseparate world. The greater part of the gains that were made in these\nworlds was not carried over into the community at large, but remained\nthe possession of the artists themselves or their private patrons and\ncritics in the Country House. With such exceptions as the Italian and\nJapanese woodcuts of the eighteenth century, and the few survivals\nof ballad and drama that slipt over from the Middle Age, popular art\nbecame another name for all that was coarse and stunted and depressed.\nThe popular architecture of the nineteenth century is the sordid\nlittle redbrick rabbit hutch: popular religion is embodied in the\nstunted sheet-iron or brick chapel (as it is called in England) of the\nBaptists and Methodists: popular music is the latest barrel organ lilt:\npopular painting is the calendar lithograph: and popular literature is\nthe dime novel.\n\nThe divorce of the art of the cultivated classes from that of the whole\ncommunity tended to deprive it of any other standards than the artist\nhimself was content to erect. Here again the comparison with science\nis curiously pertinent. The world of art is in a sense a separate\nworld, and it can be cultivated for a time without reference to the\ndesires and emotions of the community out of which it has sprung. But\nthe motto \u201cArt for art\u2019s sake\u201d turns out in practice to be something\nquite different--namely, art for the artist\u2019s sake; and art which is\nproduced in this manner, without any external standard of performance,\nis frequently just an instrument for overcoming a neurosis or enabling\nthe artist to restore his personal equilibrium. Divorced from his\ncommunity, the artist was driven back upon himself: instead of seeking\nto create a beauty which all men might share, he devoted himself to\nprojecting a poignant angle of his personal vision--an angle which I\nshall call the picturesque. The cause of this divorce I have already\npointed out in the chapter on the Country House; it is with the effects\nof this divorce, for which the artist was not greatly to blame, that we\nare here concerned.\n\nThis conflict between \u201cbeauty\u201d and the \u201cpicturesque\u201d is perhaps common\nto all the arts, and with sufficient factual detail I might be able to\ntrace its effects on literature and music. For the sake of clearness\nand simplicity I shall confine myself to painting and sculpture, with\nthe proviso that our conclusions will apply, by and large, to the whole\nfield.\n\nLet me emphasize, before going any further, that I am using the terms\n\u201cbeauty\u201d and the \u201cpicturesque\u201d in quite different senses from the vague\nones that are usually attached to them; and that I use them without\nany preliminary judgment as to their place and value in the good life.\nThe picturesque, in the quite arbitrary sense in which the word is\nused here, is an abstract quality of vision, sound, or meaning which\ncreates what we might call pure esthetic experience. In painting, the\npicturesque probably arose with the discovery, on the part of the\nleisured classes in the Country House, that it was possible to achieve\nrapture, a sort of esthetic trance, a complete state of beatitude, by\nthe more or less prolonged contemplation of a pictorial subject. Up to\nthe time of this discovery, painting was simply a branch of interior\ndecoration; the great paintings of the Christian World served, for the\npublic, as illustrations to that outline of history which medi\u00e6val\ntheology provided: they had a habitat, a social destination.\n\nWith the splitting off of the picturesque from the main body\nof ecclesiastical art, painting came into its own as an end in\nitself, apart from any place that it might have in the scheme of\nthe community\u2019s affairs. The symptom of this change is the rise of\nlandscape painting: in the search for pure esthetic experience the\npainter began to look for themes which were divorced from any human\ninterest but that of pure contemplation. During the last century\nthis split between painting as a form of social art and painting as a\nmeans of achieving contemplative ecstasy has become deeper: even those\nacademic painters who followed the methods of the older artists no\nlonger have the same field to work in, whilst the revolutionist--the\nimpressionists of one period, the cubists of another, and the\npost-impressionists or expressionists of a third--are forced by the\ngeneral irrelevance of art in Coketown to produce work which only the\nmore or less initiate will appreciate.\n\nNow, I would not for worlds underrate the gains which have been\nachieved by the divorce of art from the whole life of the community.\nIn their isolation from the social group that produced them the modern\nartists have been able to pursue their solitary way to limits which\nthe common man is probably incapable of reaching: they have widened\nthe field of esthetic delight and have introduced new values into the\nworld of painting, values which will remain even though the disease\nwhich created them disappears, just as one can salvage a pearl from an\noyster whose sickness is healed. The view from the mountain top is none\nthe worse because many people are afflicted with dizziness and nausea\nbefore they have reached the summit; and, like the pursuit of truth,\nthe pursuit of esthetic values is a good in itself apart from any\nvalues which may be realized in the community. On these terms, C\u00e9zanne\nand Van Gogh and Ryder, to mention a few of the dead, will hold their\nown, and keep the boundaries of art from ever shrinking again, I trust,\nto its academic limits.\n\nNevertheless, the effects of focussing on the picturesque can no more\nbe overlooked in art than the dangers of specialization in science. It\nis almost a banality to point out how, historically, as the picturesque\ndeveloped in art, beauty has tended to disappear from life. Whilst\nthe cultivated few have become gloriously alive to more exquisite\nsensations than their ancestors had probably ever experienced, the\n\u201cmutilated many\u201d have been forced to live in great cities and in abject\ncountry towns of a blackness and ugliness such as the world, if we are\nto judge by the records that exist, has never seen before. In other\nwords, we have become more sensitive to experiences--to the contents of\nour inner worlds--only to become more callous to things, to the brash\nsurfaces of the world without. In our preoccupation with the inner\nworlds we have to a large extent lost our hold upon beauty, which,\nin the limiting sense in which the word is used here, is the quality\nby which anything, from a torso to a building, shows its adaptation\nto an end and its sensitiveness to esthetic values--values which are\nabstracted and intensified in the pure picturesque--that are involved\nin such an adaptation. In this sense, the beautiful, as Emerson said,\nrests on the foundations of the necessary: it is the outward token of\nan inward grace; its appearance is the manifestation of a humanized\nlife; and its existence and development constitute, in fact, a sort of\nindex to a community\u2019s vitality.\n\nThe divorce of the artist from the community, and the turning away of\nhis energies from beauty, in which the picturesque might be fulfilled,\nto the picturesque itself, separate from any practical needs, has\nscarcely been compensated by the advances that have been made in the\nseparate world of art. The result has been that work which should\nhave been done by artists of great capacity has been done by people of\nminor or degraded ability. Anonymous jerrybuilders have erected the\ngreater number of our houses, absurd engineers have laid out our towns\nwith no thought for anything but sewers and paving contracts; rapacious\nand illiterate men who have achieved success in business discourse to\nthe multitude on what constitutes the good life--and so on. There is\nreally no end to the number of things which we do badly in the modern\ncommunity, for want of the artist to do them at all.\n\nThis generalization applies to the whole range of the arts. The\ngreater part of the creative dreaming and planning which constitutes\nliterature and art has had very little bearing upon the community in\nwhich we live, and has done little to equip us with patterns, with\nimages and ideals, by means of which we might react creatively upon\nour environment. Yet it should be obvious that if the inspiration for\nthe good life is to come from anywhere, it must come from no other\npeople than the great artists. An intense social life, as Gabriel\nTarde pointed out in his fine utopian fantasy, Underground Man, has\n\u201cfor its indispensable condition the esthetic life and the universal\npropagation of the religion of truth and beauty.\u201d The common man, when\nhe is in love, has a little glimpse of the way in which the drudgery\nof the daily world may be transmuted through emotional stimulus; it\nis the business of the artist to make the transmutation permanent,\nfor the only difference between the artist and the common man is that\nthe artist is, so to say, in love all the while. It is out of the\nvivid patterns of the artist\u2019s ecstasy that he draws men together and\ngives them the vision to shape their lives and the destiny of their\ncommunity anew.\n\n\n8\n\nNo matter how the modern artist may use or fritter away his abilities,\nit is plain that he has an enormous reservoir of power at his disposal.\nWhat, for instance, has made America so wholly devoted to the conquest\nof material things? Why are we so given over to collecting those vast\nmiscellanies of goods which are temptingly displayed in the advertising\nsections of our illustrated weeklies and monthly magazines? The\nnecessity for ameliorating the hard, crude life of the pioneer has\nindeed been an important influence; but the traditions of this life\nin turn produced all the minor \u201cartists\u201d or \u201cartlings\u201d who write and\ndraw for the popular papers, who create the plots of plays and motion\npicture scenarios; and since most of these poor wretches have never\nbeen educated in the humanist sense to any degree--since they know no\nother environment than New York or Los Angeles or Gopher Prairie, since\nthey are acquainted with the achievements of no other age than their\nown, they have devoted themselves wholeheartedly to idealizing a great\nmany of the things that are crude or ugly or stupid in their beloved\ncommunity. So the idola of business have been perpetuated by \u201cartlings\u201d\nwho themselves know only the standards of the business man.\n\nBecause of the limited horizons of the American artist, therefore, the\nrising generation aspires after the things that Messrs. Jack London,\nRupert Hughes, Scott Fitzgerald, and heaven knows who else have\nthought good and fine; the younger generation talks like the heroes\nand heroines of a melodrama by Mr. Samuel Shipman, when they do not\nattain the higher level of comic cuts; the younger generation thrills\nto the type of beauty which Mr. Penryhn Stanlaws sets before its gaze.\nThe notion that the common man despises art is absurd. The common man\nworships art and lives by it; and when good art is not available he\ntakes the second best or the tenth best or the hundredth best. The\nsuccess of Mr. Eugene O\u2019Neil, one of the few playwrights of any girth\nwho has contributed to the American stage, proves that the only way\nthat people can be kept away from good art is by not providing it. The\nyounger generation might just as well have had its idea-patterns shaped\nby Sophocles, Praxiteles, and Plato, if our genuine artists were not so\naloof to their responsibilities, and if they were intellectually mature\nenough to accept the full burden of their vocation. It is a sign of a\nterrific neurosis--and no mark at all of esthetic aptitude--that our\ngenuine art is so completely disoriented and so thoroughly out of touch\nwith the community. We must turn to a man of such uneven parts as Mr.\nNicholas Vachel Lindsay before we have anything like a recognition of\nthe classic r\u00f4le of the artist.\n\nArt for the artist\u2019s sake is largely a symptom of that neurotic\nindividualism which drives the artist out of a public world which\nbaffles him into a private world where he may reign in solitude as\nan unruly demiurge. Art for the public\u2019s sake, on the other hand,\nsubstitutes the vices of the extrovert for the vices of the introvert.\nWhen I say that art must have some vital contact with the community I\ndo not mean, let me emphasize, that the artist must cater to public\nwhim or demand. Art in its social setting is neither a personal\ncathartic for the artist, nor a salve to quiet the itching vanity of\nthe community: it is essentially a means by which people who have had\na strange diversity of experiences have their activities emotionally\ncanalized into patterns and molds which they are able to share pretty\ncompletely with each other. Pure art is inevitably propaganda. I mean\nby this that it is meant to be propagated, and that in so far as it\nfails to impregnate the community in which it exists with its ideas\nand images, in so far as the community is not changed for better or\nworse by its existence, its claims are spurious. Propagandist art, on\nthe other hand, is inevitably impure since instead of bringing people\ntogether on a common emotional plane, as men, it tends to accentuate\ntheir differences, and to void emotions which are proper to art into a\nrealm where the emotions of the missionary\u2019s tent or the soapboxer\u2019s\nplatform hold exclusive sway. It is just because the \u201cartist\u201d in\nAmerica has been impure in motive--a propagandist for Pollyanna in\nthe face of Euripides, a propagandist for \u201cjust folks\u201d in the face of\nSwift, a propagandist for niceness in the face of Rabelais--that he has\nfailed miserably as an artist, and has left our communities to stew so\ncompletely in their own savorless juice.\n\n\n9\n\nFor examples of what the artist might be, and what his proper relation\nto the community might be when he was mature enough to recognize it\nand discipline himself to it, let us look at Mr. William Butler Yeats\nor A.\u00a0E. There are doubtless a good many other examples that might be\noffered in Europe; but these are particularly good; for the reason that\nwith A.\u00a0E. one can see in his The National Being how the conceptions\nof art enter into the tissues of all his plans for renovating life in\nthe Irish Countryside. In the work of these artists and their fellows\nwe have a clue to one of the most promising attempts to establish a\nconcrete eutopia which shall rise out of the real facts of the everyday\nenvironment and, at the same time, turn upon them and mold them\ncreatively a little nearer the heart\u2019s desire.\n\nIn the account of Four Years which Mr. Yeats published in The\nDial he explains his attitude towards the literature and social\nlife of Ireland; and I recommend that account to all the forlorn\nrevolutionaries and reformers who wonder why the dry bones of their\ndoctrines remain dry bones, instead of knitting themselves together and\nbecoming alive. This passage in particular, defines the relation of the\nartist both to the tradition of his art and to the community in which\nhe must find a root:\n\n\u201cThe Huxley, Tyndall, Carolus Duran, Bastien-Lepage coven, asserted\nthat an artist or a poet must paint or write in the style of his own\nday, and this with the Fairy Queen and the Lyrical Ballads and Blake\u2019s\nearly poems in its ears, and plain to the eyes, in book and gallery,\nthose great masterpieces of later Egypt, founded upon that work of the\nancient kingdom already further in time from Later Egypt than Later\nEgypt is from us.\u201d He dismisses this claim with the just assertion\nthat the artist is free to choose any style that suits his mood and\nsubject; for in the world of art time and space are irrelevant; and\nhe goes on to say, \u201cWe had in Ireland imaginative stories, which the\nuneducated classes knew and even sang, and might we not make those\nstories current among the educated classes, rediscovering, for the\nwork\u2019s sake, what I have called \u2018the applied arts of literature,\u2019 the\nassociation of literature, that is, with music, speech, and dance; and\nat last, it might be, so deepen the political passion of the nation\nthat all, artist and poet, craftsman and day laborer, would accept a\ncommon design. Perhaps even these images, once created and associated\nwith river and mountain, might move of themselves and with some\npowerful, even turbulent life, like those painted horses that trample\nthe rice-fields of Japan.\u201d\n\nBy citing Mr. Yeats\u2019 conceptions I do not mean to limit the artist\nto a single function--that of patterning the good life. It is quite\nplain that pure esthetic experience is a good in itself; and when the\nartist has rendered this experience in a picture, a poem, a novel, a\nphilosophy, he has performed a unique and indispensable piece of work.\nCould italics keep this passage from being ignored I should employ them.\n\nWhat I have called the picturesque is in reality just as\nself-sustaining and delightful as the radiant good health which Sir\nThomas More rated so highly in his Utopia. If the community went to\nthe dogs, it would still be exuberantly self-sustaining, whilst anyone\nhad the time or the capacity to enjoy it. What I protest against is\nthe way in which the field of the genuine artist, during these last\nthree hundred years, has been whittled away, so that it has become\nmore and more a mark of the artist to concern himself solely with\nthe narrow province of pure esthetic experience, and to protest his\ncomplete aloofness from anything that lies outside this realm. Such an\nattitude would have struck Euripides or Milton or Goethe or Wagner as\nundignified and stupid, I am sure, because art is as large as life, and\nit does not gain in vigor or intensity by reducing its scope to that of\nthe puppet stage. The point is that there is an artistic function to be\nperformed in the community, for the community, as well as in the world\nof art, for those who are lifted up to art.\n\n\u201cNations, races, and individual men,\u201d as Mr. Yeats says again, \u201care\nunified by an image, or a bundle of related images, symbolical and\nprovocative of the state of mind that is of all states of mind not\nimpossible, the most difficult to that man, race, or nation because\nonly the greatest obstacle that can be contemplated without despair\nrouses the will to full intensity.\u201d\n\nWhether these images shall be provided by patrioteers, hack editors,\npoliticians, advertising men and commercialized \u201cartists\u201d or whether\nthey shall be created by genuine playwrights and poets and philosophers\nis an important question. The function of creating these images is an\nartistic one, and the artist who evades his responsibility is making\nlife for himself and his kind more difficult, since in the long run\na community whose sacred literature is written by Colonel Diver and\nScadder and Jefferson Brick--the great heroes of Civilization as the\nstar of empire westward makes its way--will make even the most solitary\ncultivation of the arts a thorny and difficult task.\n\nIn the good life, the purely esthetic element has a prominent place;\nbut unless the artist is capable of moving men to the good life, the\nesthetic element is bound to be driven farther and farther away from\nthe common realities, until the world of the artist will scarcely be\ndistinguishable from the phantasia of dementia pr\u00e6cox. Already, the\nsymptoms of this corrosive futility have appeared in literature and\npainting in Western Europe and America; and such light as comes forth\nfrom this art is but the phosphorescence of decay. If the arts are not\nto disintegrate utterly, must they not focus more and more upon eutopia?\n\n\n10\n\nIt comes to this then: our plans for a new social order have been as\ndull as mud because, in the first place, they have been abstract and\ncockney, and have not taken into account the immense diversity and\ncomplexity of man\u2019s environment; and in the second place, they have not\ncreated any vivid patterns that would move men to great things. They\nhave not been \u201cinformed by science and ennobled by the arts.\u201d\n\nThrough the paralysis of the arts and sciences our contemporary\nprograms for revolution and reform have done very little to lift our\nheads over the disorderly and bedraggled environments in which we\nconduct our daily business. This failure to create a common pattern\nfor the good life in each region has made such excellent efforts as\nthe garden city movement seem weak and ineffectual when we place them\nalongside the towns that medi\u00e6val civilization, which had such a common\npattern, created. Without the common background of eutopian idola,\nall our efforts at rehabilitation--the new architecture, the garden\ncity movement, the electrification of industry, the organization of\ngreat industrial guilds such as the Building Trades have achieved in\nEngland and the garment workers seem on the point of effecting in\nAmerica--without these common idola, I say, all our practical efforts\nare spotty and inconsecutive and incomplete. It was not, let us\nremember, by any legislative device that the cities of the industrial\nage were monotonously patterned in the image of Coketown. It was rather\nbecause everyone within these horrid centers accepted the same values\nand pursued the same ends--as they were projected by economists like\nRicardo, industrialists like Stephenson, and lyric poets like Samuel\nSmiles--that the plans of the jerrybuilder and the engineer expressed\nto perfection the brutality and social disharmony of the community.\nThe same process that gave us Coketown can, when our world of ideas is\ntransformed, give us something better than Coketown.\n\nThe chief use of the classic utopias that we have surveyed is to\nsuggest that the same methods which are used by the utopian thinkers\nto project an ideal community on paper may be employed, in a practical\nway, to develop a better community on earth. The weakness of the\nutopian thinkers consisted in the assumption that the dreams and\nprojects of any single man might be realized in society at large.\nFrom the bitter frustration of Fourier, Cabet, Hertzka, and even John\nRuskin those who are in search of the beloved community may well take\na warning. Where the critics of the utopian method were, I believe,\nwrong was in holding that the business of projecting prouder worlds was\na futile and footling pastime. These anti-utopian critics overlooked\nthe fact that one of the main factors that condition any future are\nthe attitudes and beliefs which people have in relation to that\nfuture--that, as Mr. John Dewey would say, in any judgment of practise\none\u2019s belief in a hypothesis is one of the things that affect its\nrealization.\n\nWhen we have projected the pattern of an ideal community and tend\nto warp our conduct in conformity with that pattern, we overcome\nthe momentum of actual institutions. In feeling free to project new\npatterns, in holding that human beings can will a change in their\ninstitutions and habits of life, the utopians were, I believe, on solid\nground; and the utopian philosophies were a great improvement over the\nmore nebulous religious and ethical systems of the past in that they\nsaw the necessity for giving their ideals form and life. In fact, it\nhas been in the pictures of ideal commonwealths such as Plato\u2019s that\nthe \u201cideal\u201d and the \u201cactual\u201d have met.\n\nIt is true that the pure utopians have overlooked the fact that every\ninstitution has a momentum of its own: its speed may be quickened or\nreduced, it may be switched on another track, as the Roman Church\nduring the Reformation was switched from the main line of civilization\nto a subsidiary route; and at times, in the catastrophe of war or\nrevolution, an institution may jump the track altogether and be\nwrecked. The critical problem for the eutopian, the problem of the\ntransition from one set of institutions to another, from one way of\nlife to another, was overlooked. Plato\u2019s Republic, for example, was\na fairly attractive place; but one wonders in what Greek city in the\nFourth Century B.C. the transition could have taken place. A transition\nimplies not merely a goal but a starting point: if we are to move the\nworld, as Archimedes threatened to with his lever, we must have some\nground to stand on. It is only by paying attention to the limitations\nof each region, and by allowing for the driving force of history, that\nwe can make the earth come to terms with man\u2019s idola. This is perhaps\nthe most difficult lesson that the eutopian must learn.\n\n\n11\n\nWhat, then, is the first step out of the present disorder? The first\nstep, it seems to me, is to ignore all the fake utopias and social\nmyths that have proved either so sterile or so disastrous during the\nlast few centuries. There is perhaps no logical reason why the myth of\nthe national state should not be preserved; but it is a myth which has\ndone very little, on the whole, to promote the good life, and has on\nthe contrary done a great deal to make the good life impossible; and to\ncontinue to cling to it in the face of perpetual wars, pestilences, and\nspiritual devastations is the sort of fanaticism which will probably\nseem as blind and cruel to future generations as persecutions for\nChristian heresy do to the present one. On the same grounds, there are\na number of other social myths, like the proletarian myth, which run\nso badly against the grain of reality that they cannot be preserved\nwithout ignoring a great many values which are essential to a humane\nexistence; and on pragmatic grounds it would be fine and beneficial to\ndrop them quickly into limbo. There is no reason to think that there\nwill be a quick conversion from these myths: the holocaust of war has\nonly intensified the myth of the National State; and our experience\nwith religious myths suggests on the contrary that the forms at any\nrate will be preserved long after the last shred of reality has\ndisappeared. But the sooner those who are capable of intellectual\ncriticism abandon these particular myths, the sooner will these idola\nfall into the state which has been happily described as \u201cinnocuous\ndesuetude.\u201d\n\nIf our knowledge of human behavior counts for anything, however, we\ncannot put aside old myths without creating new ones. The eighteenth\ncentury agnostics very wisely realized that if they wished to maintain\nthe values which had been created by Deism, they could not abandon God\nwithout inventing him all over again. In turning away from obsolete and\ndisastrous social myths I do not suggest that we give up the habit of\nmaking myths; for that habit, for good or bad, seems to be ingrained\nin the human psyche. The nearest we can get to rationality is not to\nefface our myths but to attempt to infuse them with right reason, and\nto alter them or exchange them for other myths when they appear to work\nbadly.\n\nHere is where we reap the full benefit of the great utopian tradition.\nIn turning away from the social myths that hamper us, we do not jump\nblindly into a blankness: we rather ally ourselves with a different\norder of social myth which has always been vivified and enriched by the\narts and sciences.\n\nThe idolum of eutopia which we may seek to project in this or that\nregion is not a _carte blanche_ which any one may fill in at his will\nand caprice; certain lines have already been fixed; certain spaces have\nalready been filled. There is a consensus among all utopian writers,\nto begin with, that the land and natural resources belong undividedly\nto the community; and even when it is worked by separate people or\nassociations, as in Utopia and Freeland the increment of the land--the\neconomic rent--belongs to the community as a whole. There is also\na pretty common notion among the Utopians that, as land is a common\npossession, so is work a common function; and no one is let off from\nsome sort of labor of body or mind because of any inherited privileges\nor dignities that he can point to. Finally, there is the almost equally\ncommon notion, among the utopians, that the perpetuation of the species\nleaves plenty of room for improvement, and that, as far as human\nknowledge and foresight are worth anything, it should be applied to\npropagation; so that the most reckless and ill-bred shall not burden\nthe community with the support of their offspring while those of finer\ncapacity are neglected or overwhelmed in numbers.\n\nBesides these general conditions for the good life which the utopians\nunite to emphasize, there are certain other points in the utopian\ntradition of which one writer or another has given the classic\nstatement.\n\nWith Plato we see the enormous importance of birth and education; we\nrecognize the part good breeding, in every sense of the word, must\nplay in the good community. Sir Thomas More makes us aware of the fact\nthat a community becomes a community to the extent that it has shared\npossessions, and he suggests that the local group might develop such a\ncommon life as the old colleges of Oxford have enjoyed. When we turn\nto Christianopolis, we are reminded that the daily life and work of\nthe community must be infused with the spirit of science, and that an\nacute practical intelligence such as we find today among the engineers\nneed not be divorced from the practice of the humanities. Even the\nnineteenth century utopias have a contribution to make. They remind\nus by their overemphasis that all the proud and mighty idealisms in\nthe world are so many shadows unless they are supported by the whole\neconomic fabric--so that \u201ceutopia\u201d is not merely a matter of spiritual\nconversion, as the ancient religions taught, but of economic and\ngeotechnic reconstruction. Finally, from James Buckingham and Ebenezer\nHoward we can learn the importance of converting the idolum of eutopia\ninto plans and layouts and detailed projections, such as a townplanner\nmight utilize; and we may suspect that a eutopia which cannot be\nconverted into such specific plans will continue, as the saying is, to\nremain up in the air.\n\nTaken together, there is a powerful impulse towards creating a good\nenvironment for the good life in the classic utopias we have examined:\nfrom one or another utopia we may draw elements which will enrich\nevery part of the community\u2019s life. By following the utopian tradition\nwe shall not merely escape from the fake utopias that have dominated\nus: we shall return to reality. More than that, we shall return upon\nreality and perhaps--who can tell?--we shall re-create it!\n\n\n12\n\nIn discussing the foundations of Eutopia I am conscious of a certain\nabstractness in my method of argument; conscious that I have not been a\ngood utopian in dealing with these proud idola that we may project in\nevery region. Let us come down to earth now and realize what all this\namounts to when we turn away from the library and mingle again on the\nhighways that lead past our door.\n\nFirst of all, I conceive that we shall not attempt to envisage a single\nutopia for a single unit called humanity; that is the sort of thin and\ntepid abstraction which the discipline of the Regional Survey will\ntend to kill off even in people who are now inured by education to\ndealing only in verbal things. All the human beings on the planet are\na unity only for the sake of talking about them; and as far as that\ngoes, there is very little profitable conversation that can apply to a\nGreenlander, a Parisian, and a Chinaman, except the mere observation\nthat they are all on the same little boat of a planet and would\nprobably be much happier if they minded their own business and were not\ntoo insistent about inflicting their institutions and their idola upon\ntheir neighbors.\n\nWe shall have to dismiss, as equally futile, the notion of a single\nstratification of mankind, such as the working class, serving as\nthe foundation for our Eutopia: the notion that the working class\nconsists simply of urban workers is a cockney imbecility, and as soon\nas one rectifies it and includes the agricultural population, we have\n\u201chumanity\u201d pretty much all over again. Finally, if we are to give\neutopia a local habitation it will not be founded upon the National\nState, for the National State is a myth which sane people will no more\nsacrifice their lives to than they would hand their children into the\nfurnace of some tribal Moloch; and a good idolum cannot be founded on\nthe basis of a bad one.\n\nAs far as extent or character of territory goes, we will remember that\nthe planet is not as smooth as a billiard ball, and that the limits\nof any genuine community rest within fairly ascertainable geographic\nregions in which a certain complex of soil, climate, industry,\ninstitutional life and historic heritage has prevailed. We shall not\nattempt to legislate for all these communities at one stroke; for we\nshall respect William Blake\u2019s dictum that one law for the lion and\nthe ox is tyranny. There are some 15,000,000 local communities in the\nworld, the Postal Directory tells us; and our eutopia will necessarily\ntake root in one of these real communities, and include within its\nco-operations as many other communities, as have similar interests\nand identities. It may be that our eutopia will embrace a population\nas great as that in the Metropolis of London or New York; but it is\nneedless to say that the land which lies beyond the limits of the\nmetropolis will no longer be regarded as a sort of subterranean factory\nfor the production of agricultural goods. In sum, as Patrick Geddes has\nfinely said, in the Kingdom of Eutopia--the world Eutopia--there will\nbe many mansions.\n\nThe inhabitants of our eutopias will have a familiarity with their\nlocal environment and its resources, and a sense of historic\ncontinuity, which those who dwell within the paper world of Megalopolis\nand who touch their environment mainly through the newspaper and the\nprinted book, have completely lost. The people of Newcastle will no\nlonger go to London for coals, as the people in the provinces have\nin a sense been doing this last century and more: there will be a\nmore direct utilization of local resources than would have seemed\nprofitable or seemly to the metropolitan world which now has command\nof the market. In these varied eutopias, it is safe to say, there\nwill be a new realization of the fact that a cultivated life is\nessentially a settled life: their citizens will have discovered that\nthe great privilege of travelling from Brooklyn to Bermondsey, and\nfrom Bermondsey to Bombay is scarcely worth the trouble when the\ninstitutions of Brooklyn, Bermondsey, and Bombay, and every other\npurely industrial center, are identical--sanitary drinking devices and\ncanned goods and moving pictures being the same wherever mechanical\nduplication of goods for a world market has taken the place of direct\nadaptation to local needs.\n\nIt should not surprise us therefore if the foundations of eutopia\nwere established in ruined countries; that is, in countries where\nmetropolitan civilization has collapsed and where all its paper\nprestige is no longer accepted at its paper value. There was the\nbeginning of a genuine eutopian movement in Denmark after the war\nwith Germany in the \u2019sixties: under the leadership of Bishop Gruntwig\ncame a revival of folk traditions in literature and a renascence of\neducation which has renewed the life of the Danish countryside and made\nan intelligent farmer and an educated man out of the boor. It would\nnot be altogether without precedent if such a eutopian renascence took\nplace in Germany, in Austria, in Russia; and perhaps on another scale\nin India and China and Palestine; for all these regions are now face to\nface with realities which the \u201cprosperous\u201d paperism of our metropolitan\ncivilization has largely neglected.\n\nIf the inhabitants of our Eutopias will conduct their daily affairs\nin a possibly more limited environment than that of the great\nmetropolitan centers, their mental environment will not be localized or\nnationalized. For the first time perhaps in the history of the planet\nour advance in science and invention has made it possible for every\nage and every community to contribute to the spiritual heritage of the\nlocal group; and the citizen of eutopia will not stultify himself by\nbeing, let us say, a hundred per cent Frenchman when Greece, China,\nEngland, Scandinavia and Russia can give sustenance to his spiritual\nlife. Our eutopians will necessarily draw from this wider environment\nwhatever can be assimilated by the local community; and they will thus\nadd any elements that may be lacking in the natural situation.\n\nThe chief business of eutopians was summed up by Voltaire in the final\ninjunction of Candide: Let us cultivate our garden. The aim of the real\neutopian is the culture of his environment, most distinctly not the\nculture, and above all not the exploitation, of some other person\u2019s\nenvironment. Hence the size of our Eutopia may be big or little;\nit may begin in a single village; it may embrace a whole region. A\nlittle leaven will leaven the whole loaf; and if a genuine pattern\nfor the eutopian life plants itself in any particular locality it may\nramify over a whole continent as easily as Coketown duplicated itself\nthroughout the Western World. The notion that no effective change can\nbe brought about in society until millions of people have deliberated\nupon it and willed it is one of the rationalizations which are dear to\nthe lazy and the ineffectual. Since the first step towards eutopia is\nthe reconstruction of our idola, the foundations for eutopia can be\nlaid, wherever we are, without further ado.\n\nOur most important task at the present moment is to build castles\nin the air. We need not fear, as Thoreau reminds us, that the work\nwill be lost. If our eutopias spring out of the realities of our\nenvironment, it will be easy enough to place foundations under them.\nWithout a common design, without a grand design, all our little\nbricks of reconstruction might just as well remain in the brickyard;\nfor a disharmony between men\u2019s minds betokens, in the end, the speedy\ndilapidation of whatever they may build. Our final word is a counsel\nof perfection. When that which is perfect has come, that which is\nimperfect will pass away.\n\n\n\n\nBIBLIOGRAPHY\n\n\nFor the benefit of the reader who wishes to travel further along the\ntrails opened up in this survey of utopias, I am giving a list of the\nprincipal books on the subject. This list includes all the important\nutopias that are accessible in English, as well as a few that are not;\nbut it is not exhaustive, for the region of Utopia has its swamps and\narid places as well as its fertile and cultivated land; and no one but\na scholarly explorer need attempt to enter the more forbidding parts of\nthe country.\n\nNeedless to say, in dealing with our historic utopias I had a rough\ncriterion of selection. I set out to treat such plans for the\nimprovement of the human community as had been embodied in complete\npictures of an ideal commonwealth: this excluded important essays in\npolitics like Hobbes\u2019 Leviathan and Harrington\u2019s Oceana; and it ruled\nout any treatment of abstract idealisms which, however important, did\nnot exemplify the essential utopian method. Next, I resolved to deal at\nlength only with those utopias which have exercised some influence on\nthought and life, particularly in the Western European world. Third,\nI sought to emphasize what was common in the methods and ends of the\nclassic utopias; making plain their relations within the world of\nutopias and their relevance in the present day, rather than attempting\nto show in any detail the social milieu in which each utopian wrote.\nIn dealing with the nineteenth century my criterion became a little\nshaky; and I frankly chose the nineteenth century utopias on the basis\nof their association with temporal movements like state socialism, the\nsingle tax, and syndicalism, rather than because of their conformity\nto standards which served to weed out irrelevant utopias in the earlier\ncenturies. In devoting a little space to Fourier and Spence and\ngiving short shrift to Owen I have tried to restore these interesting\nand significant figures to the place that they deserve. There will\ndoubtless be disagreements over my selections and the amount of space\nI have allotted to various writers; but at least, where there has been\nmadness there has also been method.\n\nCertain parts of the argument are not covered by this list of utopias.\nThe best introductions to utopian literature in general are in German;\nsee R. Blueher\u2019s excellent pamphlet on Moderne Utopien; Ein Beitrag\nzur Geschichte des Sozialismus, Bonn: 1920. While Mr. Van Wyck Brooks\nput me independently on the trail of Rabelais\u2019 Abbey of Theleme I\nmust acknowledge, with as much grace as possible, that Herr Blueher\nanticipated me in grasping this clue to Renascence culture; and if\nany credit is due, he deserves it. The most exhaustive catalogue of\npre-nineteenth century utopias is contained in Kautsky\u2019s Vorl\u00e4ufer des\nModernen Sozialismus. Max Beer\u2019s History of British Socialism has an\nexcellent discussion of the relation of the Utopians to socialism. See\nalso Moritz Kaufmann\u2019s Utopias; or Schemes of Social Improvement, from\nSir Thomas More to Karl Marx, London: 1879. In the excellent History\nof Utopian Thought, by Dr. J.\u00a0O. Hertzler (Macmillan: 1923), the\nphantasists are sympathetically treated.\n\nThe chapter on the Country House might well be prefaced by Mr.\nThorstein Veblen\u2019s Theory of the Leisure Class, a satire which seems\nto me unique in scholarship and originality. The importance of our\nsocial myths and our collective representations has been noted by a\nwhole school of French sociologists who follow \u00c9mile Durkheim; and the\ndynamic force of ideas has been treated by Alfred Fouill\u00e9e. On both\nthese topics there is a whole literature; and it would give a sense of\nfalse simplicity to single out any particular essay. There is a fairly\npopular discussion of the place of myths and ideals in the George\nSorel\u2019s Reflexions on Violence, and Benjamin Kidd\u2019s Science of Power\n(especially Chapter V.).\n\nAs a loose illustration of the general method and outlook embodied\nin this book I refer to the Making of the Future Series, edited by\nMessrs. Patrick Geddes and Victor Branford and published by Williams\n& Norgate, London. There is an able exposition of the regionalist\nmovement and of the fundamental realities upon which this movement\nis based in two books published in that series; namely, Professor\nFleure\u2019s Human Geography in Western Europe and C.\u00a0B. Fawcett\u2019s The\nProvinces of England. Two works by the editors, The Coming Polity and\nOur Social Inheritance are likewise suggestive. Professor Geddes is\nthe outstanding exponent of the Eutopian method both in thought and in\npractical activity; and the reader should consult his City Development\n(1904) and his Town-Planning towards City Development: a Report to the\nDurbar of Indore, 2 vols. Indore, 1918. Both of these books are mines\nfrom which all sorts of precious thoughts can be quarried. Remaindered\ncopies of the first can be obtained from John Grant, Bookseller,\nEdinburgh; while the second is sold by Botsford, High Holborn, London.\nProfessor Geddes\u2019 work exemplifies concretely a good part of what I\nhave sought to explain and define in not altogether adequate prose.\n\n\n\n\nUTOPIAS\n\n\n  PLATO (427 B.C.\u2013347 B.C.). The Republic. Translated with notes\n      and essays by Benjamin Jowett. Oxford: 1894. See also Plato\u2019s\n      Critias and Statesman in the same edition. The Laws, which\n      is a more detailed attempt to work out the details of a good\n      polity, is so lacking in Plato\u2019s original inspiration that,\n      but for Aristotle\u2019s allusion to it, one would promptly take\n      it for the work of another hand.\n\n  MORE, SIR THOMAS (1478\u20131535). Utopia. Published originally in\n      Latin in 1516. There are numerous modern editions. See Ideal\n      Commonwealths, edited by Henry Morley.\n\n  ANDRE\u00c6, JOHANN VALENTIN (1586\u20131654). Christianopolis. Published\n      in 1619 and translated in 1916 by Felix Emil Held under the\n      title of Christianopolis: An Ideal State of the 17th Century.\n      Oxford University Press. Mr. Held\u2019s introduction contains an\n      account of Andre\u00e6\u2019s life.\n\n  BACON, FRANCIS (1561\u20131626). The New Atlantis. Published in\n      1627. Bacon contemplated writing a second part which would\n      deal with the laws of his ideal commonwealth. See Ideal\n      Commonwealths.\n\n  CAMPANELLA, TOMASSO (1568\u20131639). The City of the Sun. Published\n      in 1637 as Civitas Solis Poetica: Idea Reipublic\u00e6\n      Philosophi\u00e6. See Ideal Commonwealths. ALLAIS, DENIS VAIRASSE\n      D\u2019 (--). L\u2019Histoire des Sevarambes. Written in 1672 and\n      translated into English as The History of the Sevarites,\n      written by one Captain Siden, London: 1675. In Kautsky\u2019s\n      Vorl\u00e4ufer des Modernen Sozialismus this utopia is given\n      high praise and is ranked as the French parallel of More\u2019s\n      Utopia; but I feel that this is a sad error in judgment which\n      perhaps arose out of the bare fact that the first law of\n      the great dictator Sevarias was to put all private property\n      in the hands of the state, to be disposed of absolutely by\n      its authority, and to do away with distinctions of rank\n      and hereditary dignity. There is little that is fresh or\n      imaginative in Vairasse\u2019s treatment, however, and there\n      is nothing like More\u2019s detailed effort to guard against\n      usurpation of power by the ruling classes. As simple fiction,\n      the History of the Sevarites is, however, readable. See\n      also L\u2019Histoire des Gallig\u00e8nes, by Tiphaigne de la Roche;\n      likewise the excellent satire, Giphantia. The description of\n      Salentum, under Mentor, in F\u00e9n\u00e9lon\u2019s Telemachus should not be\n      neglected. The Abb\u00e9 Morelly\u2019s Basiliade is little more than a\n      definition of his Code de la Nature.\n\n  MERCIER, LOUIS SEBASTIEN (1740\u20131814). Memoirs of the Year 2500.\n      Published in French in 1772 and translated into English,\n      Liverpool: 1802.\n\n  SPENCE, THOMAS (1750\u20131814). Description of Spensonia.\n      Constitution of Spensonia. London: 1795. Privately printed at\n      the Courier Press; Leamington Spa: 1917.\n\n  FOURIER, CHARLES FRAN\u00c7OIS MARIE (1772\u20131837). Trait\u00e9 de\n      l\u2019Association domestique agricole. 2 vols. 1822. Le Nouveau\n      Monde Industriel. 2 vols. 1829. See also Albert Brisbane in\n      his General Introduction to the Social Sciences (Fourier\u2019s\n      \u201cSocial Destinies\u201d), and Selections from the Works of\n      Fourier, translated by Julia Franklin, with an introduction\n      by Charles Gide, London: 1901.\n\n  CABET, \u00c9TIENNE (1788\u20131856). Voyage en Icarie. Published in 1845\n      and numerous editions followed during the next five years;\n      see that of the Bureau du Populaie, Paris: 1848.\n\n  BUCKINGHAM, JAMES SILK (1786\u20131855). National Evils and Practical\n      Remedies, with a plan for a model town. London: 1848.\n\n  BULWER-LYTTON, E. (1803\u20131873). The Coming Race; or the New\n      Utopia. London: 185--. A fantastic romance about a people who\n      live underground, possess detachable wings, and command a\n      potency known as \u201cvril.\u201d It is perhaps not altogether without\n      significance that this new hierarchy of industrial angels was\n      conceived by Lytton in the same decade that saw the building\n      of the Crystal Palace.\n\n  PEMBERTON, ROBERT (--). The Happy Colony. London: 1854. This is\n      an appeal to the working class, somewhat similar in temper\n      and method to Buckingham\u2019s appeal to the middle class.\n      Pemberton had an individual system of psychology which he\n      desired to apply in education. This utopia has now only a\n      limited historical significance.\n\n  BELLAMY, EDWARD (1850\u20131898). Looking Backward; Boston: 1888.\n      Equality; Boston: 1897.\n\n  HERTZKA, THEODOR (1845\u2013?). Freeland: A Social Anticipation.\n      First edition published in German, 1889; English translation\n      published by the British Freeland Association in 1891. A\n      Visit to Freeland, or the New Paradise Regained. Translation\n      published by the above Association, London: 1894. The first\n      work lays the foundations for the utopia; the second is the\n      ideal commonwealth in action.\n\n  MORRIS, WILLIAM (1834\u20131896). News from Nowhere. London: 1890.\n      There have been numerous editions.\n\n  HOWARD, EBENEZER (1850\u2013?). Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London:\n      1902. First published as Tomorrow in 1898. Unique among\n      utopian books in that its eutopia has been partly realized.\n      See numerous descriptions of Letchworth, the first Garden\n      City.\n\n  HUDSON, W.\u00a0H. (--). A Crystal Age. London: 1906.\n\n  THIRION, \u00c9MILE (1825\u2013?). Neustria: Utopie Individualiste. Paris:\n      1901. This is one of the rare, deliberately individualistic\n      utopias, founded on work, liberty, and property. It assumes\n      that a colony of Girondists were able to establish themselves\n      in South America.\n\n  HERZL, THEODOR (1860\u20131904). Altneuland. Leipzig: 1903.\n\n  TARDE, GABRIEL (1843\u20131904). Underground Man. London: 1905. A deft\n      and well-conceived fantasy, full of excellent criticism.\n      Towards the past it is a utopia of reconstruction, towards\n      the future--but herein lies much of its charm!--it is one of\n      escape.\n\n  WELLS, H.\u00a0G. (1866-?). A Modern Utopia. New York: 1905.\n\n  CRAM, RALPH ADAMS (1863\u2013?). Walled Towns. Boston: 1919. Dr.\n      Cram does not classify this work as a utopia; but the\n      honest critic cannot help giving it that label. Dr. Cram\n      sees no basis for eutopia without the system of values and\n      the sanctions perpetuated by the Christian Church; since\n      this leaves the greater part of humanity in Darkness, I\n      cannot agree with him. Dr. Cram, however, is a fine scholar\n      and a stimulating critic; and if one could only grant his\n      assumptions his conclusions would be magnificent.\n\n  MORLEY, HENRY. Ideal Commonwealths; Plutarch\u2019s Lycurgus, More\u2019s\n      Utopia, Bacon\u2019s New Atlantis, Campanella\u2019s City of the Sun,\n      and a Fragment of Hall\u2019s Mundus Alter et Idem, with an\n      introduction by Henry Morley. London: G. Routledge, 1886.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Notes\n\n\nPunctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a\npredominant preference was found in the original book; otherwise they\nwere not changed.\n\nSimple typographical errors were corrected; unbalanced quotation\nmarks were remedied when the change was obvious, and otherwise left\nunbalanced.\n\nChapter One did not indicate the beginning of section \u201c5\u201d. Transcriber\nadded it by referencing an earlier edition of the book.\n\nText mostly uses \u201cutopia\u201d but sometimes uses \u201ceutopia\u201d. Both retained\nhere.\n\nPage 104: \u201cthe tale end\u201d was printed that way.\n\nPage 224: \u201cperfunctory seal upon\u201d was printed as \u201cperfunctory real\nupon\u201d; changed here.\n\nPage 231: \u201cadvertized\u201d was printed that way.\n\nPage 294: \u201cA. E.\u201d was the pseudonym of George William Russell.","title":"The story of utopias","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":78174}