Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 3.djvu/366

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

35 2 THE AMERICA* JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

be allowed to march masses of men roughshod over individual men, in pursuit of schemes vast in aim, but needlessly terrific in means. The French Republic gravely parades that legend as itsideal. It is maddening the very people whom it is intended to soothe.

I predict that this fact about the social movement will be perceived more and more, and that it will shape more and more the strategy of the movement. Men are parts of society and necessarily subordinate to society. It is too late to avoid that fact. The needs of society must necessarily require frequent exercise of eminent domain over individual interests in ways for which damages cannot be collected. But it is possible that we are at present rating individuals as too small and too cheap parts of society. It is possible that our mighty plans of commercial conquest are not worth success, because it would have to be purchased at too great cost of individual security. The social movement, candidly and fairly interpreted, means that millions of men believe this to be the case. They say we have invented some modern improvements that are working at too great cost of manhood. They pay in false coin. Their profits are delusions. They are destroying the securities on which reliance should be placed for individual and social strength. "Give back by any means the vanishing security which we have exchanged for deceptive and debasing prosperity."

I repeat that I am not attempting to weigh the justice of this plea. It is the temper of the social movement as I observe it, and I am trying to state the bald fact. The fact must be clearly understood, whether we justify it or not. Otherwise we are entirely at fault in our estimate of the social movement. There is certainly a solemnity about this matter when we come to see these features. Men are going back to first principles. They are saying that security of fundamental rights is good for some men, and therefore good for all men. They are saying that this security is being impaired. They are demanding that it shall be strengthened. No temporary and frivolous issue this. There can be no permanent settlement until there are different