APPENDIX
OF COOPERATION, COHABITATION AND MARRIAGE
It is a curious subject, to enquire into the due medium between individuality
and concert. On the one hand, it is to be observed that human beings are
formed for society. Without society, we shall probably be deprived of the
most eminent enjoyments of which our nature is susceptible. In society, no
man, possessing the genuine marks of a man, can stand alone. Our opinions,
our tempers and our habits are modified by those of each other. This is by
no means the mere operation of arguments and persuasives; it occurs in that
insensible and gradual way, which no resolution can enable us wholly to counteract.
He that would attempt to counteract it by insulating himself, will fall into
a worse error than that which he seeks to avoid. He will divest himself of
the character of a man, and be incapable of judging of his fellow men, or
of reasoning upon human affairs.
On the other hand, individuality is of the very essence of intellectual
excellence. He that resigns himself wholly to sympathy and imitation, can
possess little of mental strength or accuracy. The system of his life is
a species of sensual dereliction. He is like a captive in the garden of Armida;
he may revel in the midst of a thousand delights; but he is incapable of
the enterprise of a hero, or the severity of a philosopher. He lives forgetting
and forgot. He has deserted his station in human society. Mankind cannot
be benefited by him. He neither animates them to exertion, nor leads them
forward to unexpected improvement. When his country or his species call for
him, he is not found in his rank. They can owe him no obligations; and, if
one spark of a generous spirit remain within him, he will view his proceedings
with no complacency. The truly venerable, and the truly happy, must have
the fortitude to maintain his individuality. If he indulge in the gratifications,
and cultivate the feelings of man, he must at the same time be strenuous
in following the train of his disquisitions, and exercising the powers of
his understanding.
The objectors of a former chapter[1] were partly in the right, when they
spoke of the endless variety of the mind. It would be absurd to say that
we are not capable of truth, of evidence and agreement. In these respects,
so far as mind is in a state of progressive improvement, we are perpetually
coming nearer to each other. But there are subjects about which we shall
continually differ, and ought to differ. The ideas, associations and circumstances
of each man, are properly his own; and it is a pernicious system that would
lead us to require all men, however different their circumstances, to act
by a precise general rule. Add to this, that, by the doctrine of progressive
improvement, we shall always be erroneous, though we shall every day become
less erroneous. The proper method for hastening the decline of error, and
producing uniformity of judgment, is not, by brute force, by laws, or by
imitation; but, on the contrary, by exciting every man to think for himself.
From these principles it appears, that every thing that is usually understood
by the term cooperation, is, in some degree, an evil. A man in solitude,
is obligated to sacrifice or postpone the execution of his best thoughts,
in compliance with his necessities. How many admirable designs have perished
in the conception, by means of this circumstance? It is still worse, when
a man is also obliged to consult the convenience of others. If I be expected
to eat or to work in conjunction with my neighbour, it must either be at
a time most convenient to me, or to him, or to neither of us. We cannot be
reduced to a clock-work uniformity.
Hence it follows that all supererogatory cooperation is carefully to be
avoided, common labour and common meals. "But what shall we say to a
cooperation, that seems dictated by the nature of the work to be performed?"
It ought to be diminished. There is probably considerably more of injury
in the concert of industry, than of sympathies. At present, it is unreasonable
to doubt, that the consideration of the evil of cooperation, is, in certain
urgent cases, to be postponed to that urgency. Whether, by the nature of
things, cooperation of some sort will always be necessary, is a question
we are scarcely competent to decide. At present, to pull down a tree, to
cut a canal, to navigate a vessel, require the labour of many. Will they
always require the labour of many? When we recollect the complicated machines
of human contrivance, various sorts of mills, of weaving engines, steam engines,
are we not astonished at the compendium of labour they produce? Who shall
say where this species of improvement must stop? At present, such inventions
alarm the labouring part of the community; and they may be productive of
the temporary distress, though they conduce, in the sequel, to the most important
interests of the multitude. But, in a state of equal labour, their utility
will be liable to no dispute. Hereafter it is by no means clear, that the
most extensive operations will not be within the reach of one man; or, to
make use of a familiar instance, that a plough may not be turned into a field,
and perform its office without the need of superintendence. It was in this
sense that the celebrated Franklin conjectured, that "mind would one
day become omnipotent over matter."[2]
The conclusion of the progress which has here been sketched, is something
like a final close to the necessity of manual labour. It may be instructive
in such cases, to observe, how the sublime geniuses of former times, anticipated
what seems likely to be the future improvement of mankind. It was one of
the laws of Lycurgus, that no Spartan should be employed in manual labour.
For this purpose, under his system, it was necessary, that they should be
plentifully supplied with slaves devoted to drudgery. Matter, or, to speak
more accurately, the certain and unremitting laws of the universe, will be
the Helots of the period we are contemplating. We shall end in this respect,
oh immortal legislator! at the point from which you began.
To return to the subject of cooperation. It may be a curious speculation
ot attend to the progressive steps, by which this feature of human society
may be expected to decline. For example: shall we have concerts of music?
The miserable state of mechanism of the majority of the performers, is so
conspicuous, as to be, even at this day, a topic of mortification and ridicule.
Will it not be practicable hereafter for one man to perform the whole? Shall
we have theatrical exhibitions? This seems to include an absurd and vicious
cooperation. It may be doubted, whether men will hereafter come forward in
any mode, formally to repeat words and ideas that are not their own? It may
be doubted, whether any musical performer will habitually execute the compositions
of others? We yield supinely to the superior merit of our predecessors, because
we are accustomed to indulge the inactivity of our faculties. All formal
repetition of other men's ideas, seems to be a scheme for imprisoning, for
so long a time, the operations of our own mind. It borders perhaps, in this
respect, upon a breach of sincerity, which requires that we should give immediate
utterance to every useful and valuable idea that occurs.
Having ventured to state these hints and conjectures, let us endeavour
to mark the limits of individuality. Every man that receives an impression
from any external object, has the current of his own thoughts modified by
force; and yet, without external impressions, we should be nothing. Every
man that reads the composition of another, suffers the succession of his
ideas to be, in a considerable degree, under the direction of his author.
But it does not seem, as if this would ever form a sufficient objection against
reading. One man will always have stored up reflections and facts that another
wants; and mature and digested discourse will perhaps always, in equal circumstances,,
be superior to that which is extempore. Conversation is a species of cooperation,
one or the other party always yielding to have his ideas guided by the other:
yet conversation, and the intercourse of mind with mind, seem to be the most
fertile sources of improvement. It is here as it is with punishment. He that,
in the gentlest manner, undertakes to reason another out of his vices, will
probably occasion pain; but this species of punishment ought, upon no account,
to be superseded.
Let not these views of the future individuality of man, be misapprehended,
or overtrained. We ought to be able to do without one another. He is the
most perfect man, to whom society is not a necessary of life, but a luxury,
innocent and enviable, in which he joyfully indulges. Such a man will not
fly to society, as to something requisite for the consuming of his time,
or the refuge of his weakness. In society he will find pleasure; the temper
of this mind will prepare him for friendship and for love. But he will resort
with a scarcely inferior eagerness to solitude; and will find in it the highest
complacence and the purest delight.
Another article which belongs to the subject of cooperation, is cohabitation.
The evils attendant on this practice, are obvious. In order to this human
understanding's being successfully cultivated, it is necessary, that the
intellectual operations of men should be independent of each other.[3] We
should avoid such practices as are calculated to melt our opinions into a
common mould. Cohabitation is also hostile to that fortitude, which should
accustom a man, in his actions, as well as in his opinions, to judge for
himself, and feel competent to the discharge of his own duties. Add to this,
that it is absurd to expect the inclinations and wishes of two human beings
to coincide, through any long period of time. To oblige them to act and to
live together, is to subject them to some inevitable portion of thwarting,
bickering and unhappiness. This cannot be otherwise, so long as men shall
continue to vary in their habits, their preferences and their views. No man
is always cheerful and kind; and it is better that his fits of irritation
should subside of themselves, since the mischief in that case is more limited,
and since the jarring of opposite tempers, and the suggestions of a wounded
pride, tend inexpressibly to increase the irritation. When I seek to correct
the defects of a stranger, it is with urbanity and good humour. I have no
idea of convincing him through the medium of surliness and invective. But
something of this kind inevitably obtains, where the intercourse is too unremitted.
The subject of cohabitation is particularly interesting, as it includes
in it the subject of marriage. It will therefore be proper to pursue the
enquiry in greater detail. The evil of marriage, as it is practiced in European
countries, extends further than we have yet described. The method is, for
a thoughtless and romantic youth of each sex, to come together, to see each
other, for a few times, and under circumstances full of delusion, and then
to vow to eternal attachment. What is the consequence of this? In almost
every instance they find themselves deceived. They are reduced to make the
best of an irretrievable mistake. They are led to conceive it is their wisest
policy, to shut their eyes upon realities, happy, if, by any perversion of
intellect, they can persuade themselves that they were right in their first
crude opinion of each other. Thus the institution of marriage is made a system
of fraud; and men who carefully mislead their judgments in the daily affair
of their life, must be expected to have a crippled judgment in every other
concern.
Add to this, that marriage, as now understood, is a monopoly, and the
worst of monopolies. So long as two human beings are forbidden, by positive
institution, to follow the dictates of their own mind, prejudice will be
alive and vigorous. So long as I seek, by despotic and artificial means,
to maintain my possession of a woman, I am guilty of the most odious selfishness.
Over this imaginary prize, men watch with perpetual jealousy; and one man
finds his desire, and his capacity to circumvent, as much excited, as the
other is excited, to traverse his projects, and frustrate his hopes. As long
as this state of society continues, philanthropy will be crossed and checked
in a thousand ways, and the still augmenting stream of abuse will continue
to flow.
The abolition of the present system of marriage, appears to involve no
evils. We are apt to represent that abolition to ourselves, as the harbinger
of brutal lust and depravity. But it really happens, in this, as in other
cases, that the positive laws which are made to restrain our vices, irritate
and multiply them. Not to say, that the same sentiments of justice and happiness,
which, in a state of equality, would destroy our relish for expensive gratifications,
might be expected to decrease our inordinate appetites of every kind, and
to lead us universally to prefer the pleasures of intellect to the pleasures
of sense.
It is a question of some moment, whether the intercourse of the sexes,
in a reasonable state of society, would be promiscuous, or whether each man
would select for himself a partner, to whom he will adhere, as long as that
adherence shall continue to be the choice of both parties. Probability seems
to be greatly in favour of the latter. Perhaps this side of the alternative
is most favourable to population. Perhaps it would suggest itself in preference,
to the man who would wish to maintain the several propensities of his frame,
in the order due to their relative importance, and to prevent a merely sensual
appetite from engrossing excessive attention. It is scarcely to be imagined,
that this commerce, in any state of society, will be stripped of its adjuncts,
and that men will as willingly hold it, with a woman whose personal and mental
qualities they disapprove, as with one of a different description. But it
is the nature of the human mind, to persist, for a certain length of time,
in its opinion or choice. The parties therefore having acted upon selection,
are not likely to forget this selection when the interview is over. Friendship,
if by friendship we understand that affection for an individual which is
measured singly by what we know of his worth, is one of the most exquisite
gratifications, perhaps one of the most improving exercises, of a rational
mind. Friendship therefore may be expected to come in aid of the sexual intercourse,
to refine its grossness, and increase its delight. All these arguments are
calculated to determine our judgement in favour of marriage as a salutary
and respectable institution, but not of that species of marriage in which
there is no room for repentance and to which liberty and hope are equally
strangers.
Admitting these principles therefore as the basis of the sexual commerce,
what opinion ought we to form respecting infidelity to this attachment? Certainly
no ties ought to be imposed upon either party, preventing them from quitting
the attachment, whenever their judgement directs them to quit it. With respect
to such infidelities as are compatible with an intention to adhere to it,
the point of principal importance is a determination to have recourse to
no species of disguise. In ordinary cases, and where the periods of absence
are of no long duration, it would seem that any inconstancy would reflect
some portion of discredit on the person that practised it. It would argue
that the person's propensities were not under that kind of subordination
which virtue and self-government appear to prescribe. But inconstancy like
any other temporary dereliction, would not be found incompatible with a character
of uncommon excellence. What, at present, renders it, in many instances,
peculiarly loathsome is its being practised in a clandestine manner. It leads
to a train of falsehood and a concerted hypocrisy, than which there is scarcely
anything that more eminently depraves and degrades the human mind.
The mutual kindness of persons of an opposite sex will, in such a state,
fall under the same system as any other species of friendship. Exclusively
of groundless and obstinate attachments, it will be impossible for me to
live in the world, without finding in one man a worth superior to that of
another. To this man I shall feel kindness, in exact proportion to my apprehension
of his worth. The case will be the same with respect to the other sex. I
shall assiduously cultivate the intercourse of that woman, whose moral and
intellectual accomplishments strike me in the most powerful manner. But "it
may happen that other men will feel for her the same preference that I do."
This will create no difficulty. We may all enjoy her conversation; her choice
being declared, we shall all be wise enough to consider the sexual commerce
as unessential to our regard. It is a mark of the extreme depravity of our
present habits, that we are inclined to suppose the sexual commerce necessary
to the advantages arising from the purest friendship. It is by no means indispensable,
that the female to whom each man attaches himself in that matter, should
appear to each the most deserving and excellent of her sex.
Let us consider the way in which this state of society will modify education.
It "may be imagined, that the abolition of the present system of marriage
would make education, in a certain-sense, the affair of the public; though,
if there be any truth in the reasonings of this work, to provide for it by
the positive institutions of a community, would be extremely inconsistent
with the true principle of an intellectual nature.[4] Education may be regarded
as consisting of various branches. First, the personal cares which the helpless
state of an infant requires. These will probably devolve upon the mother;
unless, by frequent parturition, or by the nature of these cares, that be
found to render her share of the burden unequal; and then it will be amicably
and willingly participated by others. Secondly, food and other necessary
supplies. These will easily find their true level, and spontaneously flow,
from the quarter in which they abound, to the quarter which is deficient.
Lastly, the term education may be used to signify instruction. The task of
instruction, under such a form of society, will be greatly simplified and
altered from what it is at present. It will then scarcely be thought more
necessary to make boys slaves, than to make men so. The business will not
then be to bring forward so many adepts in the eggshell, that the vanity
of parents may be flattered by hearing their praises. No man will think of
vexing with premature learning the feeble and inexperienced,left, when they
came to years of discretion, they should refuse to be learned. The mind will
be suffered to expand itself, in proportion as occasion and impression shall
excite it, and not tortured and enervated by being cast in a particular mould.
No creature in human form will be expected to learn any thing, but because
he desires it, and has some conception of its value; and every man, in proportion
to his capacity, will be ready to furnish such general hints and comprehensive
views, as will suffice for the guidance and encouragement of him who studies
from the impulse of desire.
These observations lead us to the consideration of one additional difficulty,
which relates to the division of labour. Shall each man manufacture his tools,
furniture and accommodations? This would perhaps be a tedious operation.
Each man performs the task to which he is accustomed, more skillfully, and
in a shorter time than another. It is reasonable that you should make for
me, that which perhaps I should be three or four times as long in making,
and should make imperfectly at last. Shall we then introduce barter and exchange?
By no means. The moment I require any further reason for supplying you, than
the cogency of your claim, the moment, in addition to the dictates of benevolence,
I demand a prospect of reciprocal advantage to myself, there is an end of
that political justice and pure society of which we treat.
The division of labour, as it has been developed by commercial writers,
is the offspring of avarice. It has been found that ten persons can make
two hundred and forty times as many pins in one day as one person.[5] This
refinement is the growth of monopoly. The object is, to see how vast a surface
the industry of the lower classes may be beaten, the more completely to gild
over the indolent and the proud. The ingenuity of the merchant is whetted,
by new improvements of this sort to transport more of the wealth of the powerful
into his coffers. The practicability of effecting a compendium of labour
by this means, will be greatly diminished, when men shall learn to deny themselves
partial superfluities. The utility of such a saving of labour, where labour
shall be changed from a burthen into an amusement, will scarcely balance
the evils of so extensive a cooperation. From what has been said it appears,
that there will be a division of labour, if we compare the society in question
with the state of the solitaire and the savage. But it will produce an extensive
simplication of labour, if we compare it with that to which we are at present
accustomed in civilised Europe.
[[1]]
Book VIII, Chap. V.
[[2]]
I have no authority to quote for this expression but the conversation
of Doctor Price. I am happy to find upon enquiry, that Mr. William Morgan,
the nephew of Dr Price, and editor of his works, distinctly recollects to
have heard it from his uncle.
[[3]]
Book IV, Chap. III.
[[4]]
Book VI, Chap. VIII.
[[5]]
Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chap. I.