CHAPTER L INSTITUTIONS — INDUSTRY HALF a century ago, to suggest that industry might become CHAP.L Great-scale may Be come In alized something willed and ordained by society, i.e., a social in- Why stitution, made one a candidate for Bedlam. The rising "cap- Industry tains of industry" were without responsibility either legal or moral. Hard upon the opening of the railway era an imposing stitutionsystem of production and exchange for the public-at-large grew up without supervision or control. A concern employing thousands of workers and supplying millions with some essential ware was as private a matter as a kitchen garden or a smoke house. Since machine industry and commerce had sprung up to anticipate the wants of society without any thought, concern, or risk on its part, to scrutinize them critically was to "look a gift horse in the mouth." Rather ought one to marvel at Divine Providence having so arranged it that, wherever Demand gives token of its presence, there presently a Supply is forthcoming. What might happen on plantation or in mine and mill in the way of dark oppression, driving, exploitation, strife, moral degradation, and blasting of the race in its very bud, was none of society's busi ness. No Prospect that Farming Will Come Social Industry for home needs survives, although in shrinking volume, and will never be treated as other than a private matter. Then farming, unlike manufacturing, does not appear to be evolving Under in the direction of big capitalistic enterprise. So long as it re- Control mains an intimate small-scale affair with the indivdual farmfamily as the typical unit, it rarely gives rise to social relations. Hence, it will be left as now-to individual judgment and enterprise. Nevertheless, the collection, transportation, grading, storing and distribution of farm produce challenges social attention and regulation. On the other hand, a long series of mechanical inventions has caused the production of most minerals, manufactured goods and public services to become more or less social. It is carried on by CHAP. L operative groups of ever-increasing size at the instance and under the direction of business men. As internal strains multiply in these groups it becomes more and more preposterous to insist that the constitution and management of them is altogether a private Beginnings of the Control of In Society Industrial Not Down matter. By protecting patrons and consumers from negligence and fraud, by enforcing safety measures and the installing of safety devices, by attacking working conditions inimical to health and morals, by excluding from the factories children of tender years, by limiting the hours and fixing a legal minimum wage for working women, by providing for the amicable adjustment of industrial disputes which threaten the continuous operation of public utilities, organized society here and there is projecting its deliberate will into the field of industry and business. For all its strong intrenchment in law and tradition and the vast power of the class behind it, capitalist prerogative in the field of large industry is being curtailed, just as in England under the Stuarts the royal prerogative was curtailed. School and post office, once private undertakings, have become public. To a considerable extent the "public utility"- such as street railway or lighting plant has become public. In a slight degree even mill and mine and shipyard have become public. If we may judge the course of the future from that of the past, Whch Will society will become constantly more attentive to evils in the field of industry, more solicitous that the health of young working women shall not be broken down by setting them at tasks involving too great physical strain, that boys shall not stagnate and lose heart in blind-alley jobs, that homes fit to rear children in shall be available for the workers, that the discipline of the shop shall not be such as to affront the self-respect of the working citizen, that wage earners shall not be goaded to desperation by wanton and unredressed wrong, that inequality of bargaining power shall not be used to switch product from wages to profits, that what the capitalist takes out of the business shall not be out of all proportion to the value of his services to society. Just as in our time the social will has pared down the traditional sacrosanct authority of the father in situations in which it works wrong or hardship to the dependent members of the family, so the time-hallowed autocratic authority of the "master," "boss," or proprietor, of an industrial concern will be pared down in situ The Ab. ations in which it leads to needless risk, overwork, under-payment CHAP.L or class animosity. If the "natural" authority of the father over his own flesh and blood has not been able to stand against an solutism aroused public conscience, is it likely that the artificial authority of the employer over his "servants" will be able to stand against an aroused public conscience? of the EmWill be ployer Curbed as the Absolutism of the Father Curbed The Fu ture Role of Private and Fri Capital vate Ini tiative is for the Economist to Con sider than the To predict that "social" production will be brought under the will of society is not to predict that the private capital now em- Has Been ployed in the process will be by expropriation converted into public capital, or that men of business will no longer be free to found or to abandon an enterprise according to their judgment of its prospect of profit. Whether public capital bids fair to be as intelligently managed and conserved as private capital is an economic question. Whether without the initiative of the tested business man animated by hope of profit production will be as adaptable, anticipative and progressive as it now is, is an economic Rather question. Whether the advantage from having the cherished secrets of the plant made known to all like plants will more than offset the loss of incentive to experiment and improve is an economic question. How far the traditional authority of the employer over his workers can be curtailed without serious loss of productivity is an economic question. The degree to which worker participation in the governance of industry can be pushed without impairing efficiency of management is likewise an economic question. It would therefore ill beseem the sociologist to set himself up as an authority on matters like these, which fall within the province of the economist. Sociologist The Busi man's Title to Authority Will Rest Welfare tions In respect to industry and business then, the contention of the sociologist does not go beyond this. The progressively capitalistic character of production and the increasing size of production and units are translating industry from the sphere of the individual Pronts to the sphere of society. The contemporary autocratic control of on Socialthe representatives of capital over the lives of hundreds, nay consideraeven thousands, of workers with their families, over the degree of risk, the menace to health, the pace of labor, the length of than on the working day, Sunday and holiday work, factory discipline, Rights pay, housing and other features of existence, is a relic from an earlier stage of industry. It is glaringly apparent that to-day such control is an anachronism and a misfit. Its support in the moral and legal conceptions which grew up in the era of petty produc Rather Property CHAP. L tion is crumbling. Great industry is on its way to be, in some degree, institutionalized. Every considerable establishment bids. fair to be treated as a "public utility." Such scope of discretion as will be left with the owner will be based not on the implications of property rights but on appreciation of the conditions conducive to intelligent business management. So far as is possible, "making money" will be linked with the rendering of conspicuous services to the public. Power without responsibility for its exercise will not be conceded to the captains of industry. Can the Capitalist Class Deflect So Its Nor mal Line of Development? This is on the assumption that society will follow a normal path of development. For normal it certainly is that production ciety from which has become social should in time come to be regulated by ideas and theories which are social rather than individualistic. It is true that the capitalist class, becoming ever more conscious and solidified, devises constantly new agencies for swaying public opinion. But since already in certain matters the will of society has been imposed on industry in the face of the utmost resistance by capitalists, there is no prospect of their being able to halt the movement unless in their slow retirement they should come upon terrain more favorable for resistance than any which they have yet defended. CHAPTER LI INSTITUTIONS-THE PUBLIC SCHOOL UNLIKE the family, the school is not a natural formation but a It thing willed. Back of it lies not instinct, but purpose. was a domestic concern for thousands of years before it became a social concern; but no agency has been institutionalized with less trouble. In bending the school to its will society has encountered no such strenuous resistance as captains of industry have offered to social control. Nor has the School ever gotten out of hand and made itself master of society rather than servant, as Church and State frequently have done. CHAP. LI The School a Pliant Shall Spring or from from Fear Common Under Obedience to the rules and agencies which are set up to carry out the social will may be inspired by fear or veneration, or may be founded on understanding and consent. As the process of socialization goes on, feelings are refined and men grow averse to preserving the social union by means of force, superstition and standing? prestige. They prefer to found it on agreement, and turn to church and school as agencies capable of creating the likemindedness out of which agreement springs. In the Middle Ages all through Christendom the Church was looked to as the chief promoter of concord and obedience and in many ways society aided and favored it. But, since the Church cherished aims and ambitions of its own, it proved to be by no means a pliant, manageable institution. Moreover, certain later developments have sadly impaired its value as a binder. Variation of doctrine has spread among the laity confusion and doubt. The splitting of believers into sects has made it impracticable to support religion with public money. The growth of unbelief has lessened the efficacy of religious dogma in producing likemindedness. Consequently we see modern society leaning less on the Church and more on the School. The builders of the noble cathedrals which are the wonder and pride of western Europe imagined that by rearing such temples to glorify God they made themselves safe against Paynim and Why Re- ligion no Serves as the Chief Binder |