Part 3

Long centuries passed. Man had no longer to fight for his daily bread. One invention after another had gradually modified the conditions of his life; he had become educated, had attained to different trades and professions, developed his power and authority, while woman remained the same dependent creature, tied to her duties as wife and mother. A time came when woman, too, learnt trades which she made her own. Man took them from her, possessed himself of her needle, of clothes-making, hairdressing, cookery. This is why, in the eighteenth century, women attempted an inroad into letters and the arts. This is why, helped by the Revolution, they sought to claim common rights. To-day, trained at school and college, women know that they can utilise their faculties more nobly than hitherto. They no longer live in an epoch when, men having absorbed everything, they have to resign themselves to being married, whilst hardly more than children, for a livelihood.

Consider how sad was the lot of the woman when, devoid of the means to free herself honestly from slavery, she was compelled to sell herself, by legal marriage or otherwise.

Whatever certain philosophers and anti-feminists may say, the reason why the personality of the woman weakened in the course of ages, was that her physical force had been exhausted, which entailed mental inferiority.

But through the progress of science, innovations of all kinds, economic and social evolution, daily events; throughout the complexities of a new life, woman began to make her influence felt, became conscious of her powers, strengthened by study, system and experience.

Strindberg, the misogynist, when he declared that “woman is incapable of acquiring complete knowledge in any branch of study whatsoever,” said a foolish thing. In proof of the contrary, in the university, in the art schools, in law, women are said to be, if not superior to men, at least their equal.

It must be remembered that it is less than a century since woman, even in the most advanced countries, was first allowed to receive the same training as man. Taking into consideration how far behind her rival in intellect she then was, the results she has obtained give a flat contradiction to those who opposed her equality, which, originally a law of nature, has, under modern social conditions, become a law of existence.

If it be true that it takes several generations to perfect a race from a physical point of view, it is equally true that several generations are needed for the development of the moral and intellectual qualities. If only through the consciousness of her _ego_, woman is called to take a more important place in the life of nations.

From the dependent that she once was, woman will become the agent required by her times. If she no longer receives from her comrade, as in old Teutonic days, the cuirass, helmet, and sword, that she may fight by his side, she will none the less endeavour to equal him in the field of intellect.

The start which man has gained and still keeps in the realms of Science and Art does not justify him in boasting over the inferiority of woman.

To sum up, woman claims no more than her right to-day when she demands knowledge of all the occupations in which man is employed and reserves for himself; when she desires to exercise her judgment and prove both her skill and taste.

“Whereas in men,” says Louis Dimier, “taste, which is a power of the mind, precedes and commands skill, which is organic aptitude; in women, on the other hand, it seems to be skill which determines and commands taste. One might say literally that with a woman the feeling for the beautiful is in her fingers. All women, too, some more and some less, but without exception, make use of their powers of action; but a man cannot rely all his life on the possession of his capacity for judgment.”

Yes, woman is, fundamentally, man’s equal. Belittled as she has been till recently by conditions which made her a nonentity, she is now, thanks to the spread of education, the mingling of classes, and social changes, becoming a respected worker and a valued being. Born into a new life, she will no longer be the jealous rival of man, but his useful fellow-worker, as she has always been his generous comrade, sharing his joys and sorrows.

THE EQUALISING OF CLASSES BY EDUCATION

The education which is the progressive adaptation of humanity to the conditions of social life has been, in a general way, so greatly developed by our modern civilisation, that it has, if not created the complete equalisation of the classes, at least brought the aristocracy, the middle classes, and the people together in a common effort towards individual action.

It cannot be denied that a very curious phenomenon exists in the equalisation so far effected, the causes of which are manifold, and amongst which the most noticeable and obvious are the partition of large fortunes, the importance assumed by Labour Syndicalism, and the competition established in all trades and professions.

Scarcely anything remains now of the ancient conditions of nations; the abolition of slavery has transformed the idea of servitude; compulsory education has raised the level of the lower classes, and by this means the first stone of the Socialistic edifice has been laid. But humanity, in attaining to a higher degree of self-consciousness, to a new ideal, has developed a spirit on new lines, and created for itself needs with which the old instincts have nothing to do. Capitalists, manufacturers, merchants, labour leaders, workpeople of all kinds, find themselves arrayed against one another in a new perception of their rights (if not always of their duties), and all, in the light of newly discovered needs, are jostling one another in life in this all-pervading struggle.

The mass of the people, whose one instinct in former times was the bare preservation of life, is on the way to emancipation; the pressure from beneath is mounting like a wave, leaping upward to the social strata where hitherto the monopoly of lucre and jobbery has been jealously held; the workmen’s associations, in their war against capital, want themselves to capitalise; members of the working class, with growing improvement in education, are entering the professional field; the middle classes are struggling for the attainment of public offices, and, by an inevitable reaction, the aristocracy, mulcted of some of its ancestral rights and privileges, is turning its eyes towards manufacture and commerce.

This does not mean that the balance has become even, for I am of Jean Lahor’s opinion: “The plutocrats may be preparing for the masses of the future a still more crushing yoke, with more falsity and more deadening effect--by the suggestions of the Press, which they have completely in their power--than has ever been the case with aristocracies or autocracies, whose authority had its origin at least in the finer human energies, in a noble desire for power.”

It must nevertheless be recognised that, in order that the relations between man and man should no longer be in the hands of those devoid of conscience and feeling, a certain equality, a meeting on common ground for action, has been already established in modern society; if the lower classes have climbed the ladder far enough to attain to that domain which seemed bound to remain in the hands of the higher, the latter, on the other hand, have not hesitated to leave the heights to which class prejudice might have held them, and invade the territory of trade and commerce.

A man of high position will no longer lose caste by becoming the head of a motor factory; a nobleman may take part in commercial enterprise, a prince of the blood sell, in his own name, the products of his vineyards and lands.

It is the same from the point of view of women. As they think more, as they become carried away by the desire to prove their value and the need for individual effort, the middle-class woman is reaching towards higher and higher branches of education. Great ladies, even princesses, do not disdain to draw profit from the industrial arts, from painting and literature.

These new social conditions could not continue but by the spread and improvement of education and the growing sense of justice as understood by Herbert Spencer; that is to say, the responsibility of the individual taken in connection with the need for social co-operation.

Complete equality will never exist; comparative equality must be based on such liberty as, by its exercise, cannot infringe upon the liberties of others.

It must not be forgotten that social harmony is the result of the adjustment of conflicting rights and duties. One has to-day to take into consideration the fact that the humblest artisan is working for the good of society just as is the most famous engineer, the greatest inventor, the noblest writer, or the most celebrated statesman. Therefore, being “morally equal in duty, they are morally equal in rights.”

Education, that leveller of castes, dispenser of good, justice, and harmony, is the outcome of the experience of each utilised for the good of all. It should come from ourselves as well as from others, and pass through the way of reason.

“It is through the combined working of all systems of education and hygiene,” says the author of _Pessimisme Heroïque_, “it is through the combined energy of all educators and hygienists, that we shall with certainty obtain some day fundamental reforms, and immense progress in the physical, intellectual, and moral life of humanity.”

SOCIALISM

Opposed to Individualism, Socialism is the idea of social equality in utilising the power, capital, property, labour, etc., of the community. The generalisation of the term means a social compact, a contract between the members of a society.

Born in the eighteenth century, with the theory of good to be shared by the community, Socialism, which should be a united inherent organisation of the social classes, and of the relations of different classes to one another, has become divided into several hostile cliques. Each has its partisans; there is Possibilist Socialism, the Socialism of Marx, Agrarian Socialism, Parliamentary Socialism, English Municipal Socialism, Collectivist Socialism, State Socialism, Christian Socialism, Pulpit Socialism--and more for aught I know.

The very splitting up of the initial idea which aimed at the regulation of the needs of society, proves that it is a very difficult thing to create, in its entirety, a new social machine, capable of satisfying everyone.

It is above all a question, in my opinion, of discovering a form of association which shall defend and protect by its collective force the person and property of each of its members, and through which each one, while united to all, is answerable only to himself (apart from obligations agreed upon), and remains free in his actions.

It should guarantee that no one should be rich enough to take anyone into bondage, and that no one should be poor enough to be compelled to sell himself.

Again, no man should be able to say: “I am hungry, I do not know how to get food: I am cold, I have no means of warming myself: I am homeless, I do not know where to rest my head.” No woman must need to make merchandise of herself to escape starvation.

Man being no longer obliged to sell his physical strength or intellect, woman no longer constrained to throw herself into the market, security of life would exist for all, and a sort of equality would be established.

But is not this equality a chimera, and can it exist in practice? Are not abuses inevitable? How can the feelings and duties of everyone be subject to rule, in such a way as to restrict the great as to their wealth and power and the small as to their avarice and covetousness?

Socialism would have to impose a sort of economic equality which would satisfy everyone; so that he who had climbed a few rungs of the social ladder need not envy him who is already at the top. It must, in short, do away with every cause of discontent, envy, and revenge, between the classes who are compelled to have constant dealings with one another. Thus would great social disorder be avoided. But it would be necessary to keep clear of side issues, to take as the base of Socialism the “simplifying of life,” always keeping an intellectual and spiritual ideal as the end in view.

“The characteristic of social organisation,” says Nicati, “is to be the means of information; a faithful medium between the individuals from whom primarily all activity emanates, and with whom it ends: just as the personal intellect intervenes in the emotional domain, between impressions and the impulses to which they give rise.

“The function of this natural organisation conforms to the religious principles regulating its formation and acts.

“Its ultimate object is to maintain harmony between men, as the intellect maintains harmony amongst the emotions, and to unite them in a common desire for equalisation, balance.

“The doctrine of the cultivation of an intellectual and spiritual ideal, then, may be defined as a natural social organisation having for aim the religious pursuit of good, remembering that we understand by ‘religious’ that which is consistent with the natural fabric of social relationship; and by ‘good’ the necessary and natural result of all harmony, balance.”

In reality, however, it appears to me that social equilibrium is no better established now than it was before. The weight which tipped one side of the scale is now on the other. The drawbacks of the lack of stability have not yet disappeared.

Why, for instance, should it be thought advantageous that one class, now in possession, be completely despoiled to profit another class, which would then take its place? Whether the inequality existed as from the heights downwards or from the depths upwards, would not the results be exactly the same? Is not the supreme power as dangerous in the hands of the many as in the hands of the privileged?

If it be true that man has a natural right to all that he needs, it is none the less true that his “right” should not exceed the limits of the needful.

In spite of all theories, the social organisation of humanity is not in existence yet, and will not exist so long as society fails to comprehend that its aim is to satisfy the needs of each one, in the order in which they become manifest.

THE WORKING CLASSES

The part played by the working man in modern society is of extreme importance. This producer of national wealth is the artery which keeps the heart of a country beating.

Jean Lahor says: “The wealth, power, and glory of the country are, in great part, the work of the humblest of her children--of the artisan, the worker, the common soldier, of unknown heroes of whom no one speaks, never will speak; silent whilst in life as they will be when dead.”

Lord Avebury, too, says: “It is an interesting illustration of the Unity of Man, and an encouragement to those of us who have no claims to genius, that though, of course, there have been exceptions, still, on the whole, periods of progress have generally been those when a nation has worked and felt together; the advance has been due not entirely to the efforts of a few great men, but of their countrymen generally; not to a single genius, but to a national effort.”

Then, since the working man is the great factor in national greatness, it is but just that he should be an object of consideration for the thinkers. This is a truth: the education received by the working man is not consistent with the place which he occupies in the State.

I have in mind, for the children of the working class, schools specially adapted to that class, where the child should be taught his rôle in life as a sort of religion; his employer of the future appearing as a kind of protective deity. The child destined to become an artisan should be made to understand, from the most tender age, not to regard himself as a mere tool, but as the most active element in society. He should be inculcated with pride in his condition, not have his temper embittered and be taught to hate the upper classes, which are, from another point of view, a vital element equally with his own class. The working classes--and this is a point which Socialism and Evolutionism have failed to recognise--should form a majority set apart in the nation, not for the purpose of excluding them from the common good, but, on the contrary, for their advantage, as being the most active and least fortunate.

In all countries which recognise wherein their strength consists, the working man should be the object of constant care on the part of the administration; he should be recompensed according to his merits, and receive help in his needs. The entire health of a country depends so much on that of the working population, that dwellings built in accordance with the most perfect sanitary conditions, public baths and wash-houses, national parks as in America, and institutes where he could educate himself to a higher mental life, should be guaranteed to the working man.

It is very strange that, in democratic countries, the most urgent reforms are generally delayed, that they put off the amelioration of the wretched conditions prevailing amongst the humblest--yet, by numbers and activity, the strongest--class; amelioration which is first carried out in aristocratic countries, such as England.

When French hospitals, for instance, are compared with those in England, Germany, and Russia, a clear idea is gained of the great difference, which does honour to the latter countries.

It is said that the first idea of working men’s dwellings originated in France. I admit it; but they only came into existence there after England and Belgium had set the example.

Where in the great French centres will you find the garden cities of England and Germany? Even in the matter of food, from the point of view of price and quality, the French artisan has reason to envy his English neighbour.

The artisan is too cramped by material conditions and constant labour, too much cut off from men superior in mental training to himself; he needs to be taken out of his sordid environment, allowed to acquire property of his own, to give him a taste for home life.

When legislators and rulers, teachers and employers, have taught the working man to recognise his own character and claim respect for his value to society, a thousand rational reforms will spring into being spontaneously.

It seems to me that in manufacturing centres every house should be a temple of fraternity. I will give an illustration: An artisan marries. His wife and he live in a very small house, which, after the birth of their children becomes too cramped for them, and inadequate from a hygienic point of view. Close by, there is an artisan living in a much larger house, as he has had a large family. The children, having grown up, have left their parents, and for this reason the house has become much too large for them. The couple whose family have gone take the little dwelling, and the houseful of children move into the large one. In this way a kindly interchange is made in response to particular requirements; hence, a share of happiness for everyone, and health for all.

Utopia! someone will say. Why? There is really nothing simpler. But then, unfortunately, the simple is always hostile to reason.

DOMESTIC SERVICE

Since the disappearance of slavery, domestic service has taken on new forms--variable, oppressive--and now it seems likely to disappear altogether. The terms, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, misunderstood by some, misconstrued by others, have created great disquietude in society. The servant of former days--the wage-earning man or woman--who formed an integrant part of the family, exists no longer, and those succeeding have changed the old ways and manners to the point of rendering them unacceptable--from the time when _attachment_ disappeared before a false conception of _liberty_. So that to-day, amongst people of only moderate means, the lack of servants is becoming a serious problem, although changing fashions and the competition in “special lines of work” secures us assistance in much of our daily business.

We occupy ourselves with workmen’s dwellings, have honestly sought to secure better conditions for the poor; why should we not consider the case of those blocks of flats where the closeness of the quarters has become one of the principal hindrances to the “good and loyal service” so much appreciated by our forbears?

Servants in these days consider themselves as employees of a special kind, able to dictate their own terms and exempt from various duties. Their service, continuous and dearly paid, is no longer suitable except in palaces and large private houses.

In these they form a community of their own which is not, each member of it individually, every moment of the day in direct contact with the master and mistress. In such cases as these one scarcely realises the irritating position of servants with regard to their employers, and vice versa.

The question to be considered is that of small establishments and blocks of dwellings in large towns where, for the sake of greater accommodation, the employers’ and the servants’ quarters are close together, perhaps only divided by glass doors and thin partitions. Now, to ensure respect for the master and mistress in their private life, and willing obedience from the servants, distance in point of fact should be in proportion to distance in point of position and education.

“No great man is a hero to his valet,” says the proverb. This proverb is unfortunately true. It describes an evil which has grown to such a degree as to make domestic service in apartments impossible.

In America this question is almost completely settled. In England the example set by the United States is beginning to be followed. The Continent in its turn should evolve some practical expedient for the independence of both employer and employee.

To this end there should be a system of “service by the hour.” This will have to be arranged in view of the fear that we may find ourselves servantless. It does not imply that the service now extant will disappear entirely.

Like all innovations, my suggestion will at first alarm some and bring a smile to others; it will seem paradoxical in spite of its simplicity. However, I will explain my idea.

It is not to be denied that we have become servants to our domestics, for they dictate terms on entering our service, and we are compelled to accept their conditions for fear of finding ourselves boycotted and unable to get them at all. In America--I quote typical cases--people have ceased to have their meals at home on Sunday because the _chef_ or cook spends that day in the country. In England ladies’ maids refuse to wait up for their mistresses’ return from evening parties. (I knew an unmarried lady who was compelled to sleep one night dressed as she was because her maid, having locked herself into her room, declined to get up to unfasten her dress for her!) In Germany the servants make it a condition that they shall spend so many evenings at masked balls; in France a weekly or fortnightly “day off” is one of the least inconveniences created by domestic service.

Is it not the truth that in flats, if one had a woman in in case of need, and a sort of watchman to guard against burglars, nothing more would be needed?