Janus in Modern Life

by W. M. Flinders Petrie

We should need a Board of Health in each area of about 10,000 inhabitants, composed of three examining doctors. Every child on leaving school, or at about fifteen, should be examined, merely by a glance at the greater bulk of normal cases, but carefully in extreme cases. The finest 5 per cent. both mentally (shown by school-leaving certificates) and physically as well, should be premiated by assisted higher education of suitable type. The worst 10 per cent. should be remanded to a training school where physical and mental development would be scientifically carried out, and as much profit as possible made from their labour toward self-support. This would reclaim the hooligan class effectually before they run amuck, and help on those who need care and assistance to get a good footing in life. No course could possibly be kinder for the weaklings. At the age of twenty a further examination of both the best and the worst classes should ensue. The best half of the most able should receive a certificate granting them practically free support for all children they may have after they have reached the age of twenty-five. The worst half of the most incapable, or 5 per cent. of all, should be required to report residence during their lives to the Board of Health of their district, and informed that if they had any children they must pay a heavy fine, or else go into servitude. This would practically mean the segregation of the lowest class of the unfits under compulsory work. It would be cheaper to the state to keep them thus at work, than to pay poor rates to maintain this submerged twentieth and their helpless families.

In all these proposals there would be no Socialistic constraint of the great majority, which is normal in mind and body. But such attention to the unfit would be merely adding a porch to the poorhouse, the hospital, and the asylum, and there sorting over the material which can be possibly saved from a bad end. The nine-tenths of people who were ordinary would be thus left even more free for individual growth than they now are, when hampered by the inefficient residue.

We might not exclude the thought of another favourite idea of some reformers which in a modified shape might be allowed to gradually take root. Since Spencer Wells familiarised the world with an operation for which he will always be remembered, hundreds of women have gladly improved their health by a safe treatment, which, if anything, threatened to become too fashionable. Every woman who was, as above, required to report her residence as being unfit, and being liable to heavy penalties on having children, should be offered the option of perfect freedom if she chose the operation. The marriage of such women, with men who were condemned as unfit, would entirely free both parties from reporting and inspection in future, and give the best prospect of happy lives to the weakest and less capable of the community, free from what would be only too truly "encumbrances" to such people. This course might give a permanently safe line of improvement, without any consequent stigma or hardship in the world around; and so gentle a change—beneficial to the individual as well as the community—seems not outside of future possibilities. At least such a course would be the more practicable form of such a proposed change. Of course, no such legislation would be complete in its action, and evasions would often occur. But if it checked even one half of the growth of bad stock it would be an enormous gain.

We now turn to other lines of advance from the communal point of view. The old system of community, in which all the nations of northern Europe lived, was based on each man being his brother's keeper; every one was liable to fines if any relative committed a crime, in proportion to their closeness of relation. To this succeeded individual responsibility, both in property and in penalties. This raises the question whether it is possible to separate property and penalty in communism. At present the tendency is to a state communism, begun by heavy death duties and taxation (for a variety of purposes which the taxed do not use or require), amounting to a quarter of all property. If this system is extended, and property becomes more largely hypothecated to public purposes, then when a man is condemned in heavy damages or fines his neighbours will suffer by reduction of the rateable property. Will it not be thought more fair for his relatives to be responsible for the public loss? And if so, we indirectly revert to the payment by relatives of a share of all fines.

To anyone who has had experience of combined labour, it is obvious how two people working together do not perform twice as much as one alone. There is always a loss by one waiting on the action of another; and it appears as if the amount of work done only increased as the square root of the number of people working together. Hence the group-work of communistic taste is very wasteful. This is practically seen among the Slavs in Russia, where communal agriculture—which is extolled by its admirers—produces far less per acre on fine land, than is obtained by individual agriculture on poor land in England. Again it is notorious how the Irishman who goes to work apart among individualist people, then flourishes as he never does when held down by the communal claims socially enforced among his own countrymen. This is the root of the success of the Irish out of their own land. Thus we see how communal action is the more wasteful form of labour; and how it was a great advance for man when he made individual success entirely depend upon individual labour.

Another question is what form of government will most favour the strong breeds and the new strains of ability as they arise? Certainly any system which ties the actions of one person with those of others is detrimental to ability. The better man is held back by the co-operation with others, by their lower example, and by their direct disfavour. Any communistic tie is unfavourable to advance; and it was a great step in favour of new and improved variations when each individual stood entirely on his own resources, and was not bound by his inferior kin. In every way, therefore, individualism was a line of advance for men in the past; and the principles which are involved promise that it will yet likewise be the main line of future advance. If we look practically at which class of government is associated with advance of ideas, of inventions, and new types of thought, let us put on one hand the more individualist countries, America, England, Germany, and perhaps France, and on the other hand the more communist countries, Switzerland, Norway, Ireland, Greece, Australia, and especially New Zealand. Can we question for a moment which type of country is most advancing the intellect and abilities of man?

But we must not forget that Union is strength, the motto that Belgium strangely took on separating from Holland; and combined action has great advantages. In this view the beneficial combination is that to which all contribute without one being a hindrance to the other. How far can these benefits be gained without loss to the improved individual? The main principle is that all combinations must be entirely voluntary, and have no suspicion of coercion about them. Where even "peaceful persuasion" comes in, ability is crushed, and the whole community is the loser by it. Coercive union of individuals is the unpardonable sin against human nature, because it kills the hopes of the future. The safe line of advance is combination by large clubs for every purpose, with healthy rivalry between similar institutions—benefit clubs, co-operative stores, co-operative works, holiday clubs, and insurance of all kinds. Every inducement should be held out to join in such combinations, giving them the assistance and security of official auditors, as is provided for friendly societies at present Every line in which any class can profitably unite for economic action, on an entirely voluntary basis, and without any tie on the individual beyond his share in the enterprise, is a clear gain to society. In this way the taxation for these ends would fall on those who benefit by them, and not on those who do not want them. Thus the individual would be free to take, or leave alone, the benefits provided; and many purposes to which taxation is now applied would be far better effected by gigantic clubs of those classes who want such assistance. Taxation must be strictly limited to those purposes in which all persons must necessarily share, such as protection and justice.

Hence a future line of advance lies in a great development of purely voluntary co-operation in any one class, in order to obtain the advantages of combination. In one direction it is clear what immense savings might be thus effected. Co-operative purchase of supplies and cooking, with distribution of hot meals to subscribers, would save perhaps a third of the cost of living to the working classes. And if the prepaid weekly subscriptions might be deducted before wages were received, such a system would go far to solve the question of proper feeding of children. Again, the education of hand-workers in the subject of economics can be best furthered by the experience gained in co-operative works, and even on this ground alone every encouragement should be given to such combinations of workers.

Another line of advance now coming into practical view is the use of various nationalities, according to their abilities for different kinds of works in foreign countries. We have seen, in Europe, Italian miners taken to many lands for tunnelling and submarine work, we have Norwegians largely employed in our shipping, and English engineers find many careers abroad. Of recent years the great mass of cheap skilled labour of China and Japan has been getting its due share of the world's work. The infamous manner in which the Chinese have been treated in America is apparently now nearly at an end; the Republic where all men are free and equal will be coerced into fairness by the reasonable refusal to take American goods as long as the Americans will not take Chinese labour. In British Columbia the Japanese are objected to because they are more industrious, more economical, more sober and quiet than the white, who, as their inferior in these principal respects, cannot bear their competition. The Americans are likewise trying to prevent their industry, while at the same time wishing to make the Panama Canal with Chinese labour; in this they will probably be rebuffed, unless the whole national position is put on a fair basis. The objections to Chinese labour in South Africa have never been put on the real fact—tacitly felt, though unexpressed—that the white dreads the competition of an economical people. First they were said to be tortured in slavery, a lie which served its big political purpose until it was found that they would not leave; then the danger of public crime and burglary was put forward, until it was shown that there were fewer criminals in proportion than among other inhabitants; then a cry of immorality was raised, until the Colonial Secretary stated that the Kaffirs who would replace them had just the same habits. Now the Transvaal refuses to destroy its own welfare by the falseness of playing with any of these cries; but such hatred to free labour has all served the political ends which were intended by an unscrupulous party that revels in keeping a conscience. Meanwhile the Prussian Board of Agriculture desires to import Chinese agriculturists into Germany; and it will be strange if the great German coalfields in South Wales are not run by the cheapest labour that can be obtained. We have no laws to prevent Chinese working freely in England, and we cannot afford to wreck our great China trade by starting a gross injustice of exclusion.

If objections are felt—by a people so immoral as ourselves—to the toleration of any habit of foreign residents, let it be legislated upon equally for all nationalities in England. In this way the Canadians expelled the rowdy negroes who had taken refuge with them in the days of slavery. A rigid and impartial punishment of rowdyism cleared out the undesirable negro, and left the inoffensive behind. The only possible course of safety is not by any laws directed against any one race; for when such laws break down in the growth of the future there will be a terrible economic—if not political—catastrophe. Rigid laws to check evils of all inhabitants of a country alike are sound and safe, and will prevent most of the objectionable results of immigration, Jewish, Italian, Chinese, or any other. With such laws a great advance can be made by the free use of that kind of labour which is most adapted to the work, whatever source it may come from. Such must inevitably be the course of the distant future; and those who play with holding what they please to call a "white man's land" will find that "mean whites" of hot countries are wholly inferior to other races which are fitted for such a position. Bret Harte has well stated "the conscious hate and fear with which inferiority always regards the possibility of even-handed justice, and which is the key-note to the vulgar clamour about servile and degraded races."