Transcriber’s Note

Larger versions of most illustrations may be seen by right-clicking them and selecting an option to view them separately, or by double-tapping and/or stretching them.

A History of Social Thought

A HISTORY OF
SOCIAL THOUGHT

BY
EMORY S. BOGARDUS, Ph.D.

Professor and Head of Department of Sociology and Social Work
University of Southern California

Author of
INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGY
ESSENTIALS OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
ESSENTIALS OF AMERICANIZATION

1922
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PRESS
3474 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
LOS ANGELES

Copyright 1922, University of Southern California Press

JESSE RAY MILLER
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PRESS
LOS ANGELES

DEDICATED TO MY STUDENTS
WHO ARE TRANSFORMING THEIR SOCIAL THOUGHT
INTO HELPFUL LIVING

CONTENTS

PREFACE

This book is written for the world of students. In it any seriously-minded person should find a fundamental background for understanding the central theme of human progress, a substantial basis for attacking the most important problems of the day, and a call to renew his faith in the soundness of human aspirations.

Inasmuch as this treatise is written for students, it is not intended to be the last word on the subject, but simply a first word. The theme of each chapter is in itself a subject for further investigation. In fact, the student with an alert mind will find in each chapter many subjects concerning which he will want to learn more. If the discussions in this book stimulate the student to make inquiries on his own initiative, they will have accomplished more than the author could have expected.

Emory S. Bogardus.

University of Southern California.
June 1, 1921.

A HISTORY OF SOCIAL THOUGHT

Chapter I
The Nature of Social Thought

Man faces a world of social problems. As a result he is perplexed beyond description; his thinking often ends in confusion. Inasmuch as the average citizen, for the first time in the world’s history, is beginning to attack social problems, he is entitled to all the aid that can be made available. Upon the success of the average person in mastering the intricacies of social thinking, the cause of democracy depends.

A large proportion of the analyses of social questions has been academic. These discussions have often terminated in quibbles or erudite generalizations. Insofar as social theories have been correct they have unfortunately been reserved for the theorists alone. The people themselves have not understood the nature of social thought; they have not benefited; and hence, they have held social thought in contempt. Sound social thought needs to be democratized, that is, to be made available for all people.

In thinking about social problems, the so-called practical person has proceeded in his own way. He has had personal experience—and that to him has been sufficient. He has been motivated by a sense of injustice, and stung into fervid thought by circumstances which seemed to him unfair; he has concocted a make-shift remedy, or impulsively accepted a ready-made program. Perhaps he has urged a single cause for all social ills and prescribed a single remedy for all social diseases. Usually, he has been very limited in his observations, untrained in making proper inductions, and hence, narrow and intolerant in his conclusions. He has been entirely baffled, or else he has felt cock-sure.

The practicalist is often a poor theorist. He may be even the most dangerous type of theorist. He has scoffed at theory and then fallen into the pit of incorrect theory. He has failed to see, for example, that a good bridge does not project itself across a chasm, but that a correct bridge-building theory is essential. With social practicalists and theorists calling each other names, instead of co-operating and unselfishly giving the world of people the benefit of their combined points of view, the world has floundered and its social problems have piled up, mountains high.

Another difficulty in the pathway of sound social thinking is found in an absence of proper backgrounds. People are prone to offer solutions for social questions without first equipping themselves with a knowledge of foundational elements. Moreover, they are often unwilling to acquaint themselves with these necessary factors. It is only by accident, however, that current social movements can be understood unless the historical sequences of social cause and effect are perceived. Nearly all social problems are essentially the outcroppings of tendencies which have had a long human history. A current social maladjustment is generally indicative of a long line of antecedent factors. A knowledge of societary fundamentals is essential to sound thinking about present-day evils. A history of social thought furnishes a minimum social background for the understanding of current social processes and problems.

Social thought, as distinguished from individual thought, treats of the welfare of one’s associates and of groups. It may be very simple, merely observational, the result of daily experience, or it may be a scientific study of social processes. Sociology as an organized science has developed only during the past few decades. Inasmuch as sociology has simply begun its work of formulating the principles of societary progress, a large proportion of the thinking that has thus far been done in human history about the welfare of socii or associates is either individual or social, rather than sociological. A history of social thought, therefore, includes the larger social field as well as the more specific one of recent development, namely, the sociological. The time is hardly ripe for a history of distinctly sociological thought.

Social thought, as here used, is a synthesis of the observations of individuals about the welfare of other individuals, considered as individuals or as groups. The focus of social thought is not the welfare of the ego but of the alter, not of the self but of others, not of the individual but of the class, group, organization, or process. Social thought draws from the thought-life of persons who have done unselfish thinking and who have focalized their attention upon the nature and principles of associative activities. It tests group progress by the degree in which human personalities secure constructive, co-operative expression. It measures the individual in his relationships to the social whole, whether that unit be the family, school, church, state, or the world society. It rates the individual in terms of a functioning unit in group life. It evaluates the group both in regard to the quality of the personalities which it produces in its membership, and to the loyalty which it manifests as a unit of a larger group, even of human society itself.

Social thought is both concrete and abstract. Concrete thinking rarely goes deep. It asks few questions, raises few doubts, and perceives few connections. Abstract thinking seeks causal explanations, classifies concretenesses, penetrates relationships, and proposes well-balanced procedures. The distinction, however, is largely one of degree. Concrete thinking is characteristic of every normal person, but abstract perceptions are uncommon. The ability to do abstract thinking, to get at the deeper meanings of phenomena, to penetrate the mysteries of life, is rare. Concrete thinking constitutes the major sector of the thought-life of every person, nearly all the time.

Here and there, however, in human history we find individuals who have been freed or who have freed themselves from the daily struggle for a living, from the race to make money, or from the selfish enticements of life-long loafing, and have joined the world of scholars, seeking to know the truth, the truth which makes men and women free—free to develop useful personalities in a vast, changing complex of human living. When man, having leisure to think abstractly, has set himself to the task of thought research, his mind has ventured along at least five pathways.

(1) Man has given considerable attention to his relation to the universe. Primitive man conceived of a personal universe, peopled with spirits. Throughout human history man has been a religious being, trying to solve the problems of a universe ruled by spirits and gods or by one supreme God. This type of thought has produced polytheisms, monotheisms, theocracies. It has formulated theological creeds and led to bitter ecclesiastical controversies. It has created fears, hopes, faiths, social ideals, and sacrificial standards.

(2) Irrespective of religious needs, man has endeavored to discover proper relations to his universe. He has philosophized. He has tried to reduce to terms of thought this baffling, intangible, universal environment. He has searched for a specific ground for explaining the universe. He has sought unity in change and monism in multiplicity. He has proclaimed that change itself is Lord of the universe, or perhaps he has found solace in a creative evolution. At any rate, he has sought ultimate meanings in as unbiased an interpretation of the universe as is humanly possible.

(3) From the far-flung horizons of religious and philosophic theory, man has turned his thought in an opposite direction—he has directed his thought upon itself. He has maneuvered his thought processes introspectively. He has puzzled over the structure and functions of his own mind. These series of studies have led on the one hand to treatises such as the Critique of Pure Reason, and on the other hand to the current expressions of behavioristic psychology or of psychoanalysis.

(4) Man has sought to fathom the material secrets of the earth. Since the Industrial Revolution in England, inquiring minds have focussed tremendous energies upon attempts to master the physical elements. Rocks and strata of rocks have been caused to yield a wealth of ores, and subterranean caverns have been made to pour forth reservoirs of gas and oil. Modern transportation has been made possible by the use of steam, gasoline, electricity. Mechanical inventions have followed one another in unanticipated fashion, paying awe-inspiring tribute to the genius of man. Abstract thinking has given man a marvelous degree of control over the material side of life.

(5) Recently, the problem of man’s adjustment and responsibility to his fellowmen is being accorded a worthy hearing at the bar of scientific thought. For millenniums man has pondered hard over his relations and obligations to his God and to his universe, over the nature of his mind and spirit, over ways and means of acquiring individual success through a manipulation of the material resources of the earth. Incomprehensible as it may seem, it is true, however, that man has neglected almost wholly, until recently, the very heart of all successful living, namely, his relations and obligations to his fellow men and to society. Social thought, the center of all sound thinking, has been ignored. Consequently, the world, beneath its load of social ills, has slipped backward nearly as often as it has advanced.

In the present age, however, the world is making unprecedented demands upon social thought, long before social thought is adequately prepared for its gigantic tasks. Religion is seeking re-vitalization through socialized thinking. In its modern endeavor to win the world, Christianity is making tremendous demands upon applied sociology.

After many vain searches among false theories and impersonal ends, philosophy is seeking to find itself in a social universe. Psychology, likewise, is no longer individual, structural, and formal; it is now trying to interpret itself in terms of human behavior. Group processes are being searched for the origins of stimuli that will explain individual conduct.

Economic thought, too, has reached a stage where it is endeavoring to re-define its concepts in the light of sociological knowledge. The material resources of the earth as well as industrial and business enterprises, in fact all economic values, are being measured, and re-valued in terms of their societary significance. The meaning of industrial democracy is being sought in sociological terms.

In the distinctively associative life enormous demands are being made upon sociology. It is invited to formulate the criteria by which the worth of an educational system may be determined. Groups are trying to provide for the use of the leisure time of their members by methods that are socially valuable. Many attempts are being made for restoring to the family its fundamental prerogatives as a social institution.

The history of social thought rises out of the beginnings of human life on earth and with jagged edges extends along the full sweep of the changing historical horizon. It finds expression through some of the world’s best minds. Our quest will bring us in contact with the most vital moments of the world’s most valuable thinkers.

Chapter II
Earliest Social Thought

Primitive people were inquisitive. They thought about what happened and they sought explanations. Their attention was centered on the tangible phenomena of life. Their imagination worked out fantastic and superstitious interpretations. They reasoned about the daily occurrences of life in concrete, graphic, and personal terms.

Primitive people everywhere, apparently, sensed in a piecemeal and microscopic way the meaning of social relationships. Archeological records disclose crude and simple, but nevertheless genuine social implications. Early mythologies recognize the importance of social bonds. Out of the dim dawn of tribal life there appeared a rough-hewn sense of social property. The proverbs of primitive people include implications, if not definite statements, of social responsibility.

Primitive people lived simple group lives. If the paternal relationship was not always known or recognized, the maternal relationship functioned for at least a few years. The loose family ties harbored a degree of social responsibility. Wherever ancestor worship developed, the family group assumed large proportions and manifested strong social characteristics. The clan, or gens, betokened social fealty.

Communal property testified to communal thinking. The existence of common hunting grounds and tribal flocks was indicative of folk thought. Group dances, feasts, building enterprises, celebrations delineated the social spirit. Warfare produced bursts of tribal loyalty. An examination of the folkways reveals indistinct but incipient notions of societal welfare. Such a treatise as Sumner’s Folkways chronicles a vast amount of elemental folk thinking.

Folk thinking permeated primitive religions. The earliest forms of religion presupposed societies of spirits or gods. The conduct of the individual was regulated by his ideas concerning the ways in which he had pleased or offended the spirits or gods. An infant was born into a society peopled with human and spirit beings. The latter were often more numerous than the former; they frequently were more feared; and hence were more powerful. The living people, the departed spirits, and the gods in a hierarchal order constituted an effective society for the exercise of many vigorous forms of social control.

If pestilence came, it was because the gods had been offended by some human being. As a result of the offense of one individual, the whole tribe was considered to be liable to punishment. Consequently, the tribe in turn would punish the offending member and through the use of force and fear would exert a tremendous power over the conduct and thought of individuals.

Primitive people were dominated by custom. They were subject to the autocracy of the past. They were hopelessly caught between ancestral ascendance and current fears. They threaded their way, mentally, through tantalizingly uncertain and narrow apertures. They learned the meaning of obedience, but obedience to a harsh and rigorous past and a fickle and disconcerting future. Leadership was drastic and capricious; followership was frantic and tremulous.

Some of the incipient social concepts of primitive peoples have been preserved in the form of proverbs, maxims, fables, and myths. Many of the subtler social relationships of life were recognized by early man. His limited thinking drifted into simple formulae. His vocabulary was scanty; his ideas were few. He spoke in conventional sayings. “Primitive man spoke in proverbs.”

Many folkthoughts, or primitive conceptions of social obligations, have been preserved. The early proverbs of man reveal the beginnings of social thought. Equally valuable and similar materials are found in the sayings of the tribes which today are in a state of arrested development. A few illustrations of embryonic social thought will be given here.[II-1]

The first examples will be selected from the folkthoughts of the Africans of the Guinea Coast. The proverb, Ashes fly back in the face of him who throws them, recognizes that evil deeds return upon the doer, or as moderns declare, Curses come home to roost. In the saying, Cowries are men, primitive man roughly but succinctly stated the theory of the economic determination of human history. It is cowries, or money, which molds human thought, determines human evaluations and attitudes, gives social power, and “makes the man.” An age-long conception, indicative of a low sense of social feeling, but possessing great force in society, is revealed in the dictum, Full-belly child says to hungry-belly child, “Keep good cheer.” Throughout human history, the fortunate glutton has always recommended patience and tranquility to the unfortunate, hard-working brother. An eminent American financier of the multi-millionaire class expressed pity for telephone girls who undergo hard labor, but declared that their harsh conditions were what the good Lord had made for them. But how far has this well-groomed citizen of our century advanced beyond the “full-belly” social philosophy of savage man?

In the observation, A fool of Ika and an idiot of Iluka meet together to make friends, the African has noted that friends are persons of similar types, of similar minds, of similar prejudices, and that “birds of a feather flock together.” Whether conscious or unconscious, association occurs among persons of a kind, among fools of Ika and idiots of Iluka.

Romantic love, evidently, has always been fickle, for the African has discovered that “quick loving a woman means quick not loving a woman.” If this naïve but shrewd reflection concerning lovemaking were taken at its real worth at the present time, it would be crystallized into a federal marriage law requiring that a license to marry should be obtained at least fifteen or thirty days before the marriage could be celebrated.

A rather keen sense of social injustice is expressed in the monologue: “The ground-pig said: ‘I do not feel so angry with the man who killed me as with the man who dashed me on the ground afterward.’” Here the injustice of striking an individual when he is down is depicted. Even primitive man has a sense of sympathy for the defeated and helpless.

“Three elders cannot all fail to pronounce the word ekulu (antelope): one may say ekúlu; another ekulú; but the third will say, ékulu (which is correct).” In other words, several heads are better than one; or, in a multitude of counsellors there is safety. It was this simple social precept which a highly individualistic man like Roosevelt used frequently to the advantage of himself and the nation. When a perplexing problem would confront President Roosevelt, he was wont to invite to the White House persons whose beliefs were contrary to his own in order to secure their opinions. He acted independently, but after taking counsel with several “elders.”

In Thinking Black, Daniel Crawford has presented phases of the colored man’s philosophy.[II-2] While much is individual, more is social philosophy. Custom imitation prevails. The social philosophy of the African Negro is summarized in the rule: Follow your leader. Social precedent, not principle, is the guide to conduct. If you are a follower, follow patiently; if you are a leader, lead drastically. “If thou art an anvil, be patient ... but if thou art a hammer, strike hard.”

The African understands the social psychology of language. He watches the eyes more carefully than the voice. To him the human eye speaks all languages under the sun. Mr. Crawford says that the wary eye of the African “can easily fish news out of the two deep liquid pools of your eye-balls.” If your eye says one thing and your tongue another, then the African “will plump for the verdict of the eye.”

The aphorism, There is no pocket in a shroud, warns the individual against the possibility of taking his material goods into the next world. To share with other persons is rated a higher act than to store from others. He is richest who shares most. Among the Africans with whom Mr. Crawford worked, the word for criminal was not applied to the person who had stolen property or who had taken life, but to the one who eats alone. “The high crime and misdemeanor of the town is to dine alone;” the criminal above other criminals is “Mr. Eat-Alone.” He who refuses to share his food with those who are less fortunate than himself is an arch-devil. Such a vice is common among beasts; it is beneath the dignity of man—according to the African. When several primitives were taken to London and shown the wealthy and the poor sections of that city, they were dumbfounded. They were utterly unable to understand how any persons with the slightest spark of human nature in them could endure to live to themselves in wealth when in the same city there were the wretched and prostrated multitudes of Whitechapel and the other cheerless slums.

“What baby lion ever trembled at his father’s roaring?” A few mornings ago, I heard an angry parent yelling at his son, but the disobedient child kept on in his own way. I wondered how far this father had advanced in parental influence and discipline beyond the stage represented by the African seer who drew his social images from a lion-frequented environment. “If a tree has grown up crooked, it is because no one straightened it when young.” This statement postulates social responsibility for juvenile delinquency and even for adult crime. The underlying principle is the same as that in the Hebraic injunction: Train up a child in the way he should go; and when he is old, he will not depart from it. The principle has received current recognition in the doctrine of contributory negligence of parents. The modern observation full of socially dangerous implications, that parents are blind to the weaknesses of their children, has its African counterpart: The beetle is a beauty in the eyes of its mother. A gleam of light is thrown upon the current discussions concerning social parasitism by the African’s assertion: The parasite has no roots.

The Australian Blackfellow who goes upon a journey, sometimes takes a handful of mother earth with him. In this way he testifies to his loyalty to home, and provides against the rise of lonesomeness which he will experience during tribal hunts. His act crudely represents the essence of the concept of patriotism. A sense of justice is common to primitive Australians. Among the Whayook of Australia a man who has wounded a fellow tribesman is required to present himself to the injured in order to receive a similar wound.[II-3] Among the Wumbais, a person who is absent when a relative dies must not speak on his return to camp to anyone until he has had spears thrown at him.[II-4] Spencer and Gillen report that the Australian primitive regards any offense as wiped out by a suitable proffer of atonement.[II-5]

The Filipino declares: A piece of green wood will burn if placed near the fire. In other words, temptation is a subtle element that ultimately may destroy even persons who are supposedly temptation-proof. In the proverb, Boastfulness drives away wisdom, the Filipino has pointed out that the desire to make a strong impression upon associates hinders intellectual progress. The chief danger of luxury is stated in the saying: He who is raised in ease, is usually destitute. The leading result of being financially fortunate is summarized thus: Easy earning means quick spending. The evils of hypercriticism are bluntly phrased: The fault-finder has the biggest faults. The law of social compensation is stated as follows: You laugh today; I laugh tomorrow. The organic nature of society is implied in the truism: The pain of a finger is the suffering of the whole body. The need for independent thinking is urged in the declaration: Whoever believes everything said, has no mind of his own. On the other hand, the egocentric mind receives solemn warning in the dictum: He who despises counsel is on the way to misfortune. The value of a social spirit is proclaimed as follows: Kindness is a great capital; and again: Good deeds are more precious than gold or silver. A gentle hint of social importance is given in the formula: Kindness is with kindness to be paid, not with gold or silver. In these and related proverbs the earliest social thought of the Filipino mind is indicated.

Let us now examine a few ancient Japanese axioms. (1) The mouth of the mass melts gold. This proverb refers to the fundamental force of public opinion. (2) The world is like a looking-glass; if you smile, others also smile. Here is depicted the elemental character of unconscious imitation. (3) What the ruler wants, the ruled also wants. In other words, what the upper classes desire, the lower classes long for; or, as Tarde has said: “The superior are imitated by the inferior.” (4) Three men get together and have knowledge equivalent to that of Monju (a famous Buddhist thinker). The African, Filipino, and English equivalents of this adage have already been given. All races, apparently, have early observed the safety which comes from taking counsel. (5) The net of Heaven is rough, but will never miss one victim. Our equivalent, of Graeco-Latin origin, is: The mills of the gods grind slowly, but exceedingly small. Evil brings its own rewards sooner or later. The law of retribution cannot be overcome, even by social manipulations. (6) If one dog barks a falsehood, ten thousand others spread it as a truth. In these words, gossip is condemned, and the humanity-wide tendency of hearsay evidence to gain social force is pictured. (7) The tongue is but three inches long, but it can kill a man six feet high. Again, the vicious nature of gossip is shown. Further, the severest punishment is not always physical; it may come from the human tongue. (8) A man takes a drink; then the drink takes the man. In this dramatic description, the drinking of intoxicating liquors is effectively indicted. (9) Applause is the root of abuse. Even the Japanese have recognized the force of opinion in influencing the individual, and of favorable opinion in unduly expanding the ego. A unique characteristic of many Japanese proverbs is the fundamental and deep-moving knowledge of social psychology which they show. Judged by their proverbs, the Japanese possess an unusual understanding of human nature.

Bulgarian proverbs disclose social thought. The “full-belly” philosophy of the African, or the pig-trough philosophy that has been analyzed by T. N. Carver, has its Bulgarian counterpart: The satiated man cannot believe the hungry man. The South Slavs are noted for their weddings which often continue for three days. When these festivities are over, the bride enters upon a more or less monotonous round of bearing and rearing children. These social conditions are aptly described:

Dum! Dum! for three days;

Oh dear! Oh dear! for all days.

Patience is enjoined in the Bulgarian adage: Endure, O horse, until the time of green grass. Hope that rises in the heart of man is paid homely but genuine tribute in the rural Slavic proverb: The hungry hen dreams of millet.

The Danes have many sayings which emphasize social dependence. The individual is instructed: Act so in the valley that you need not fear those that stand on the hill. The shrewd man is socially dangerous, for: Cunning has little honor. Gossip is shown as a swift messenger in the axiom: A man’s character reaches town before his person. The most serious result of cheating others is the effect upon the cheater, or: He is most cheated who cheats himself. The common character of sin is recognized in the Danish proverb: He must be pure who would blame another. Custom is a powerful agency of control. The Danes command: Follow the customs, or fly the country.

The Portuguese have a social saying to the effect: He buys very dear who begs. The unscientific nature of love is indicated in the Portuguese declaration: Love has no law. The frequent antithesis between money lending and friend making is succinctly phrased: Money lent, an enemy made.

A few Arabian proverbs state social ideas. The laws of human association and imitation can be found in the following axiom: A wise man associating with the vicious becomes an idiot; a dog traveling with good men becomes a rational being. The strength which comes from unity is forcibly phrased: Three if they unite against a town will ruin it. The transforming power of love is recognized: Love can make any place agreeable. An idealistic social standard is set for the individual in the aphorism: It is more noble to pardon than to punish. On the other hand, mercy may be misplaced: Mercy to the criminal may be cruelty to the people. The individual must beware of being an ingrate; he must not permit his selfish desires to crush out the spirit of gratitude: A tree that affords thee shade, do not order it cut down. The omnipresence of envy is understood: Envy assails the noblest; the winds howl around the highest peaks. The anti-social tendency of a vicious habit is well described: A hand accustomed to take is far from giving. Perhaps the Malthusian advocate will find solace in the simple dictum: If the sailors become too numerous, the boat will sink. He who pleases everybody has done so at the expense of his own character, or as the Arabs say: He deserves no man’s good will of whom all men speak well.

From Ceylon comes the philanthropic request: When you eat, think of the poor. The Cingalese, however, recognize the importance of maintaining the scientific attitude in charity, for they have a saying: He who gives alms must do it with discretion. The blighting influence of wealth is stated in the Cingalese axiom: A covetous man has two sources of iniquity—how to amass money, and how to use it.

Among Mexican proverbs, social ideas are not missing. The reader will catch the social significance of the following: (1) A howling cat is not a good hunter; (2) Everybody can climb up the limbs of the fallen tree; (3) A rich widow cries with one eye and rings the wedding bells with the other; (4) The tongue slow, the eyes quick; (5) From January to January the bankers have all the money.

The illustrations which have been given from several racial sources will suffice to show the nature of the earliest social thought of primitive peoples. By way of comparison, a few social proverbs which are common among English, Scotch, French, and German speaking peoples, and which are of various origins, will be given. It will be unnecessary to comment upon the social thought which is stated or implied in these proverbs.

That is not lost which a friend gets.

The shortest road is where the company’s good.

A man is known by the company he keeps.

Do unto others as you would have others do to you.

A man who would have friends must show himself friendly.

One bad example spoils many precepts.

Honesty is the best policy.

One good turn deserves another.

Birds of a feather flock together.

As the twig is bent, the tree is inclined.

People who live in glass houses mustn’t throw stones.

Bare is the gift without the giver.

What is not good for the swarm is not good for the bee.

He laughs best who laughs last.

To make a happy couple, the husband must be deaf and the wife blind.

Charity gives itself rich; covetousness hoards itself poor.

The nature of the primitive social thought that has been preserved through proverbs and sayings justifies the following observations. (1) Primitive social thought was exceedingly simple, crude, and undeveloped. (2) It was uncorrelated and unsystematic. (3) A classification of the total number of known proverbs of any primitive people into individual and social types shows that not more than ten per cent are social. Primitive thinking was done in terms of the welfare of the individual himself. The social thought was commonly of individualistic origin. A social idea was originally not suggested for its own sake or disinterestedly, but for the reason that its observance would enable individuals to live together more harmoniously and prosperously. (4) Social proverbs employ figures of speech. Similes from nature are frequent; physical analogies are not uncommon. Many of these figures disclose a rural or bucolic mind. (5) Frequently, the social proverbs of the various races pertain to family and community relationships. The sense of social responsibility does not penetrate as a rule beyond the small group. The responsibility of group to group is rarely expressed or implied. The social vision does not extend to large groups. (6) A comparative study of primitive social sayings indicates countless similarities, and testifies to the uniformity of human experiences and social needs, irrespective of racial distinctions. These resemblances do not imply collaboration, collusion, or imitation. They mean that the needs of primitive individuals in various and unrelated parts of the world have everywhere led the human mind out in search of socially satisfactory explanations. Primitive thinking produced fundamental social concepts, such as kinship, authority, dependence, and tribal loyalty.

Chapter III
The Social Thought of Ancient Civilizations

In this chapter the discussion of earliest social thought will be presented from the standpoint of the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Babylonia and Assyria, India, China, and Persia. The evidences of social thought are meagre and inchoate. Nevertheless, there are data which cannot be ignored. Inferential evidence and proverbial references constitute the main portion of these data.

(1) The ancient Egyptian social order was bureaucratic and autocratic. The king was supreme. With the rise of the Theban hierarchy, the priestly class came to power and established a theocratic régime. Then military leaders came into prominence and overthrew the theocracy of the priests.

With the historical rise of Egypt, about 4000 B. C., the emphasis upon law as the basis of the social order stands out prominently. The books of laws early acquired sacred significance. They were reputed to be of divine and monarchical origins; they provided courts of justice; and they prescribed punishments for offenses.

The social ideas are to be gleaned almost entirely from proverbial sayings. Egyptian scholars refer to collections of these moral precepts as being of a practical rather than a systematic philosophical nature. The most frequently mentioned of the Egyptian books of proverbs are the Proverbs of Ptah-hotep, and the Prescriptions of Ani.

The social order was dominated as a rule by the king, who was supposed to be divine. The king and a relatively small number of nobles owned the land. The large percentage of the people were serfs and slaves. Throughout ancient Egyptian history, the middle class must have been weak, and small in numbers. When the lands passed under the control of the temple authorities no change occurred in the social conditions of the masses. The priests shared the authority with their auxiliaries, the soldiers. The unprivileged classes included the farmers, boatmen, mechanics, trades-people, besides the slaves.[III-1]

Egyptian life was rural. Commerce was undeveloped. Higher education was reserved for the very few, although it appears that elementary education was widespread. The priests often used their educational advantages to prey upon and excite the superstitions of the people, thereby strengthening the social control which they enjoyed.

An anomalous phase of the Egyptian mind was that it shifted back and forth from a hedonistic enjoyment of the moment to a serious contemplation of the future life. Amusements were fostered; the drinking of intoxicating liquors was extensive, and music was promoted. The game of draughts was perhaps the national pastime. The people were not warriors. They employed mercenaries, who ultimately became socially powerful.

Polygamy was countenanced and practised, but only of course among the wealthy. A relatively high degree of freedom was granted the women among the privileged classes. They appeared in public with their husbands; they publicly engaged in religious ceremonies; and they were given unusual property rights. At one time it is reported that Egyptian women could not only own property, but could dispose of it as they wished, or could loan money at interest to their husbands. At another time the following injunction seems to have been issued: “Thou shalt never forget thy mother, and what she has done for thee, that she bore thee, and nurtured thee in all ways.” Children were enjoined to obey their parents, to be respectful to their superiors, and to be reserved. Greatness was identified with kindness. Justice and kindliness were urged upon the leaders.[III-2]

The belief in the future world claimed a lion’s share of the attention of the Egyptian. As a result, sculpture flourished. It was believed that if the human figure was copied and the copy preserved, the spirit and the body of the departed person could be more easily re-united. Architecture developed, but with the tombs or pyramids and other monuments as the chief forms. Urban mural divisions and fortified walls are still to be found as evidences of Egyptian social institutions.

It was taught that in the next world the individual would be held accountable for his deeds in this life. This belief acted as a powerful social control; it involved specific social obligations. The individual must deal openly with his fellowmen. He must observe the rights of the weaker members of society. For example, he must not make false charges against a slave to the master of the slave. He must show that he has respected the social rights that were invested in property. From the moral and social writings of the Egyptian scribes, it is apparent that in religious matters, the individual was moved to give thought to his duties as a citizen and as a neighbor.

(2) The ancient Babylonian and Assyrian social order was similar in many ways to Egyptian civilization. The Babylonian description of a great deluge resembles the account of the Flood that is given in the Old Testament, and indicates thought about morals and social life. Both Babylon and Assyria developed a religion which was expressed in terms of the nation-group. The boundaries of one, with Merodach at the head, and of the other with Assur in supreme control, marked the national group divisions. Merodach, it was believed, accompanied the king in the wars and fought for the nation. He was concerned entirely, according to traditions, with the welfare of Babylonia as a population group.

The attitude in Babylonian society toward the institution of slavery was distinctly different from that in Rome, but similar to the Egyptian practices. The slave was considered in a more social way than by the Romans. He was frequently regarded as one of the family; he could even become a free member of society. “Slavery was no bar to his promotion.” Moreover, slavery did not necessarily imprint a social stigma upon the slave.

The social rights of women were similar to the Egyptian customs. The married woman of the ruling classes possessed definite property rights. She could use the property that she owned as she saw fit; she could even bequeath it as she chose. Her dowry gave her economic independence; it was her absolute property, which she could bequeath by will in any way that she desired.

The earliest well-known Babylonian ruler was Hammurapi (2124–2081). He is known best through his famous book of laws, the Code of Hammurapi. The Code bespeaks for the author the desire to rule Babylonian society justly. There are minute regulations of private business and of labor conditions which give the Code some of the characteristics of modern mercantilistic thought.

The Code contains perhaps the earliest forms of labor legislation that were enacted. Hammurapi sought through legislation to determine wages for different classes of labor. The Code prescribed severe punishment for anyone who sheltered a runaway slave. In this and similar ways, property rights were protected and human elements subordinated. It was not until the Deuteronomic Code was written that the rights of labor received legislative recognition.

Hammurapi stood for a paternalistic control of society. His idea of justice was literally that of an eye for an eye. “If a man has caused the loss of a patrician’s eye, his eye shall one cause to be lost.”[III-3] Justice, moreover, was subject to the law of social gradation. An offense against a man of lower rank might be atoned by paying money. “If a man has caused a poor man to lose his eye, he shall pay one mina of silver.”[III-4] Additional light is thrown on the concept of justice by other passages from the Code, especially by this one: “If a builder has built a house for a man and has not made strong his work, and the house he has built has fallen, and he has caused the death of the owner of the house, that builder shall be put to death.”[III-5]

The intellectual progress and the inventions of the Babylonians are indicative of social status. The development along artistic lines, particularly in architecture and sculpture, must have exerted an indirect but important social influence. Significant advances in surgery had been made preceding the reign of Hammurapi. In medicine, however, the demonic theory of the causes of disease enslaved the people.

The Assyrians, who lived to the north of the Babylonians, were less social in type. They were little concerned about the future life; their religion was relatively undeveloped. The Assyrian artists gave their attention chiefly to the king, the court, and to war. They reproduced in artistic form the king and the soldier, but ignored the life and customs of the people.

(3) When we turn to early East Indian records, we find a higher development of social ideals than among any peoples which have thus far been considered. In the Vedic documents there is considerable evidence of communal life and of a remarkable degree of social spirit and brotherliness. In the East Indian account of a Deluge—similar to the Deluge that is described in Genesis—there is a conception of punishment that falls upon the group because of the sins of individuals. Sacrifice, among the Vedic believers, had acquired a positive social function. It was considered as a social act, in which the worshipper and the god took part. The food strengthened the god and the spiritual contact strengthened the worshiper. Hence mutual sympathy was generated.

With the rise of Brahmanism, the caste system developed. It divided society. It gave structure to the concept that some people are naturally—and artificially—superior to other people. In the laws of Manu, several social concepts are broached. The nature of marriage and the duties of a householder are explained. The duties of a woman are prescribed. The nature of private and public law is noteworthy, and the recognition of the obligation of one caste to another in times of distress marks the beginning of a reaction against the caste system. It was considered possible for an individual to fall from a caste to the one below, but not for an individual to rise in caste. The moral standards for individuals reached a level comparable to those represented in certain of the teachings of Jesus. For example, notice this instruction:

Let him patiently bear hard words, let him not insult anybody, nor become anybody’s enemy for the sake of this perishable body. Against an angry man let him not in return show anger; let him bless when he is cursed.

Buddhism inaugurated a set of social ideas which involved the abolition of the caste system. In the fourth of the “Four Noble Truths” the principles which are formulated, are partly of social import. Commendation is extended to right speech—speech that is friendly, and sincere toward others. The requirements include right conduct—conduct which is peaceable and honorable toward other persons. Stress is placed upon right means of securing livelihood—methods which do not involve the injury or the taking of life. There are types of modern business enterprise that are extolled in our Christian America which would fall under the ban of the “Noble Truths” in pagan India.

Among the “ten commandments” of Buddha, eight represent social ideas and obligations:

(1) Not to kill any living being.

(2) Not to take that which is not given (not to steal).

(3) To refrain from adultery.

(4) To speak no untruth (not to lie to other people).

(5) To abstain from intoxicating liquors.

(6) Not to slander.

(7) Not to covet.

(8) Not to be angry.

Buddha taught that hatred is to be repaid by love, that life is to be filled with kindness and compassion, that the widest toleration is to be practised. The teachings of Buddha engendered a delicate social consciousness regarding the relation of the individual to his fellows. The precepts were strong enough to break down rigid class barriers. The underlying conception was broadly human.

Additional light is thrown on the social thought of Buddha by the following sayings which are credited to him:

Pity and sympathy is the Buddha’s mind.

Pity to his parents is the Supreme Law.

Honesty is the Paradise of the Bodhisattva.

O my Disciples, flee from fornication, know how to be content with your own wife, and do not even for a single moment lust after another woman.

A state without a ruler is like a body without a head; it cannot exist very long.

The king looks upon his subjects with a heart of mercy, as if they were his children; and the people regard the king as their father.

If there is no Buddha in the world, be good to your parents; for to be good to one’s parents is to minister unto Buddha.

Nursing a sick man is the great field where the righteous tree of mind grows.

Even a strong man cannot lift himself.

Ten people have ten colors (opinions).

The paint which is painted by ten fingers (men) is accurate. (In the multitude of counsellors there is safety.)

The sayings of Buddha may be summed up in the statement that, like many of the teachings of Jesus, they accent the gentle virtues and the passive traits of a people bearing a yoke against which they are powerless to revolt, the virtues of obedience, respect to those in authority, long-suffering, patience, even resignation.

(4) The social thought of early China can best be gleaned from the writings of Confucius. This scholar was not a reformer or a religious leader, but primarily a conserver. He was interested in civil and political affairs. His books reflect not his own ideas, for his originality was not great, but the concepts which had been worked out before his time. In the Li Ki, or Record of Rites, there are many social and domestic precepts. In a way the Li Ki, “the Chinamen’s manual of conduct,” is a treatise on social as well as individual ethics. Around the family group, Chinese social ideas revolved. On the death of his mother, Confucius, for example, went into seclusion for twenty-seven months. On sacrificial occasions the living members and the departed spirits of the household were accustomed to gather in one filial communal group. The welfare of the individual was completely subordinated to the interests of the family group of spirits.

The Chinese worship, or honor, their ancestors. The worship of the past has paralyzed new thought. Custom imitation has ruled and tradition has been reverenced.

Marriage receives special attention, but the arrangements are made by parents or “go-betweens.” Socially, the sexes do not intermingle. The parents exercise complete control over the children; the mother bears a considerable portion of the burdens of parental discipline. Filial piety is the cardinal virtue. Although polygamy is discountenanced, concubinage is permitted. The sexes dress very much alike, except in headdress and footgear. The style of wearing apparel is not only simple and aesthetic, but it “minimizes the visible distinctions of sex.”

Confucius, or Kung-fu-tsze, believed in the efficacy of setting good examples. Imitation would then accomplish the desired results. By these methods, Confucius expected that society would be improved. Fundamental principles of a stable social order, more than of social progress, were in the mind of Confucius. He conceived of the universe as a perfect order. Likewise, he thought of the state as a perfect social order. Confucius urged that the individual strive for perfection. According to the Confucian doctrine of the Superior Man, the individual should master his own passions and desires, substituting an enjoyment of music, ceremony, and of friendship, for the enjoyment that comes from the exercise of the bodily passions. He should seek salvation through the study of nature and of things. Moral character and intelligence if accompanied by bravery will produce the highest type of personality.

In Chinese social thought the family and state were early recognized as the two leading institutions in society. In the civil organization it is worth while to note the hien, or city district. The hien has been pronounced “the real unit of Chinese corporate life”; and the hien magistrate, “the heart and soul of all official life.” Since this magistrate keeps closely in touch with the masses, he is called by the people “the father and mother officer.” The hien contains some of the germ ideas of democracy; it emphasizes local self-government.

The ancient laws were elaborate, giving an unusual degree of power to the judges. Although customs ruled, the judges often possessed a liberal margin of freedom in determining the nature of punishments. Contrary to Western procedure, the Chinese consider an accused man as guilty until proved otherwise. Excessive corporate punishment is deplored.[III-6] Confucius objected to the maintenance of a government by the use of fear and of coercive measures. He predicted that capital punishment (even in a land ruled by custom) would be abolished in a hundred years.

The ideas of peace and harmonious social relationships have long held sway in China. Militarism has been scorned, and war held in contempt. It is ironical that as China begins to function as a world power in contact with Western and Christian nations, she is compelled to find her chief defense in an uncivilized and unChristian militarism.

Sympathy is a fundamental concept among the Chinese. Unfortunately, it has been instrumental in producing a highly specialized and professionalized class of beggars. Industry and patience are characteristic social virtues. Lao-tse, the founder of Taoism and a contemporary of Confucius, taught the social precept: Recompense injury with kindness. Confucius, who disagreed, taught that kindness should be paid with kindness, and injury with injury. This conception led Confucius to formulate his golden rule of human conduct: Do not do to others what you would not have others do to you.

Obedience to authority has been for centuries a cardinal social principle of the Chinese. It was enunciated by Confucius, who spoke as a representative of the ruling classes. In stressing obedience to temporal authorities and in shunning the gods, Confucius has been accused of fostering a materialistic philosophy. This charge is partly offset by his ethical teachings. Confucius was a humanitarian rather than a materialist; he was a utilitarian rather than an idealist. In these attitudes he reflects not his own opinions so much as the thought of the generations which preceded him.

Mencius, who lived shortly after Confucius, was an environmentalist in the sense that he believed that external evil influences have corrupted man’s original good nature. On the other hand, Mencius urged progress through regeneration of the heart. Mencius was a more thoroughgoing humanist than Confucius, for he made the happiness of the people the supreme goal for the individual. He condemned war and warriors alike and declared that generals are criminals. He asserted that it is wrong to conquer a territory against the will of the people of that territory.

Additional sidelights upon early Chinese social thought are afforded by the following social proverbs of ancient Chinese origin:

If a cat cries after eating the mouse, this is false sympathy.

Follow good, learn good; follow beggar, learn to beg.

Gentlemen use heart; lesser men use strength.

New clothes but old friends are good.

Within the four seas all are brothers.

If two people were 1000 miles apart and be like-minded, they will come together; if they sit opposite one another and are not like-minded there will be no mutual acquaintance.

Speak language fitting to station of man you meet.

All under heaven is one home.

Although a man is away from home, his heart is there.

The big fish eat the little ones, the little ones eat the shrimps, and the shrimps are forced to eat mud (applied to the classes of society who pay taxes).

He who praises me on all occasions is a fool who despises me or a knave who wishes to cheat me.

Govern thyself, and you will be able to govern the world.

The hearts of the people are the only legitimate foundations of an empire.

By nature all men are alike; but by education, widely different.

For the sake of one good action, a hundred evil ones should be forgotten.

To forget one’s ancestors is to be a brook without a source, a tree without a root.

Rogues differ little; each began first as a disobedient son.

Of all man’s actions, there is none greater than filial piety.

When they saw an old man, people walking or driving gave him the road. Men who had white hairs mingling with the black did not carry burdens along the highways (care for the aged).

When the man of high station is well instructed, he loves men; when the man of low station is well instructed, he is easily ruled.

Three friendships are advantageous: friendship with the upright, friendship with the sincere, and friendship with the man of observation. Three are injurious: friendship with a man of spurious airs, friendship with the insinuatingly soft, and friendship with the glib-tongued.

Who taught you politeness? The impolite.

To be a successful monarch, one must be a just monarch.

Of the different peoples which have thus far been considered, the Chinese have furnished the most elaborate degree of social thought. While the social ideals of the Chinese are largely unsystematic, they accent the family and the state as essential social institutions. They also reveal even a significant conception of world brotherliness. The Chinese have probably created more social proverbs than any other people, past or present. For the stage of civilization that is represented by proverbs and sayings, the social thought of the Chinese is unsurpassed. In this regard the Chinese have but one close competitor, the ancient Hebrews.

(5) The Persians, who after their defeat by Alexander the Great in 331 B. C. have been credited with having turned over the torch of civilization to the Greeks, made a contribution to social thought similar to that of the other ancient peoples. Under Cyrus the Great, Darius, and Xerxes a system of state education was fostered which was designed chiefly to train soldiers. It did not stress social and intellectual development, although it existed in a land that produced the Magi. The individuals who were not in the army received slight educational benefits.

It is in the teachings of Zoroaster of the sixteenth century B. C. that we first find the main trend of Persian social thought. The Zend Avesta, the document from which Zoroasterism and the modern Parsee religion have evolved, emphasizes the principle of kindliness in all important human relationships. Sanitation, business honesty, and chastity in family relationships are taught.

The ancient Hebrews and the Greeks each made such large contributions to social thought that separate chapters will be devoted to these peoples. In a summary of the social thought of the Egyptians, Babylonians and Assyrians, East Indians, Chinese, and Persians, it may be said that there is a rather uniform emphasis upon the elemental virtues, particularly upon kindliness. While the individual’s salvation is given prominence, the individual is urged to be socially considerate and to cultivate sympathetic relationships with the gods and with his fellow human beings.

Chapter IV
The Social Thought of the Hebrews

Ancient Egyptian, Babylonian and Assyrian, East Indian, Chinese, and Persian records disclose a set of elemental and yet more or less passive social backgrounds against which the social ideals of the Hebrew prophets shine forth like stars of the first magnitude. The Pentateuch and the writings of the Hebrew wise men are rich in gleams of a social spirit, while the Hebrew prophets, notably, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, uttered flaming indictments of social evils.

The Hebrews stood head and shoulders above their contemporaries in social thinking. They left a series of historical documents, covering several centuries and revealing a specific evolution in social concepts. They expressed the fundamentals from which Christian social thought developed, and from which much of the ethical and social thinking of Western civilization on its practical side has evolved.

The social thought of the Hebrews was born of group suffering. Through the mists of the earliest Hebrew traditions we discern that conflicts occurred in the Euphrates Valley which sent Abraham out on his perilous journey toward unknown and hostile Canaan. The gaunt spectre, famine, brought distress to the household of the domestic-loving Abraham and drove him to Egypt where he sojourned for a time. Abram, exalted father, or Abraham, father of a multude, became the founder in a sense of three world religions, for to him Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism trace their origins.

Throughout the years of migration, exile, and suffering, Abraham maintained his religious faith and belief. By means of his simple religion he was able to interpret sanely the troubles and conflicts of life. Out of suffering interpreted religiously, Abraham developed a remarkably well-balanced and social personality. From this beginning, Hebrew social thought evolved. Ultimately, Israel created social concepts which has won for her the distinction of being “the leading social teacher of the human race.”[IV-1]

As a social entity the Hebrews were the result of “a titanic social struggle;” they arose out of an industrial crisis. The scene was laid in Egypt. The descendants of Jacob were working long hours with little pay, as slaves, and under harsh social conditions. One of their number, more favored than the rest by heredity and environment, saw a Hebrew workman being beaten by an Egyptian “boss.” The favored one, Moses, felt the surging passions of social injustice rising within his breast—and he slew the boss. Moses thereby became the founder of the world’s labor movement. By an act of violence in the impassioned days of youth, Moses became “a social agitator”; by years of patient service of his people in the name of Jehovoh, he became one of the world’s greatest social seers.

Rameses II was “an unprincipled captain of industry.” He was haughty, hard-hearted, and without social conscience. Moses was sympathetic, socially sensitive, and keenly religious. Rameses II was a leading representative of an ancient aristocracy; Moses was the first great exponent of an incipient democracy, and “the first man in history with a well-developed social consciousness.”

According to the Exodus record Moses, as the murderer of an Egyptian boss, felt no qualms of conscience, but he did fear the mighty Pharaoh. At that time in history it was a minor matter to kill a slave; but to have killed a boss was vastly different. The slave represented weakness; the boss was the official representative of political and financial power. Consequently, Moses fled the country. In Egypt he was helpless, and in danger of losing his life. He fled to Midian.

In Midian, Moses pondered over the economic and social injustices to which his people were being subjected. He communed with God, from whom he received the motive power to correct a gigantic social wrong. His vision of Jehovah gave him the conviction that Jehovah is a God of justice and mercy who understands social and industrial evils and sympathizes with the socially defeated classes. Moses reports this remarkable social message from Jehovah:

“I have surely seen the affliction of my people that are in Egypt, and have heard their cry of anguish because of their taskmasters, for I know their sorrows, and I am come down to deliver them out of the power of the Egyptians.”[IV-2]

In other words, against the union of great wealth and political power in the hands of an unjust man, God revolted, and God said to Moses: “Rescue this Israelitish people from the heels of autocracy.” Moses conceived of Jehovah as a God who is “full of sympathy for the afflicted and dependent and ever eager to champion their cause against cruel oppression.” Moses’ conception of Jehovah as a socially spirited God is unique for that day in human history. God is described as a lover of justice and even a lover of mankind. When God speaks, it is usually in terms of democracy. The first social teachings of the Old Testament, considered chronologically, are those against social and industrial oppression.

A momentous conflict ensued. Fired by the promises and presence and power of Jehovah, Moses journeyed back to Egypt. He proceeded to organize the first labor strike known to mankind. Thereupon, the angry Pharaoh commanded the workers to make brick without straw. And when the workers cried out against the impositions and burdens, the agents of “the first great captains of industry” taunted the workers and cried at them: “Ye are idle, ye are idle.” But God and Moses won against the hosts of autocracy and plutocracy. The workers were freed.

Out of these struggles the Hebrew nation took form. Group loyalty, or patriotism, became a conscious Hebrew concept. The idea of kinship was supplemented by an appreciation of the meaning of national life. Furthermore, a sense of social and economic justice received a clear-cut and positive human expression and divine approval. For the first time the social problem was defined.

The major social chord which the Hebrew prophets kept vibrating was justice. Some of the recurring interpretations of the needs of the hour were: Let justice roll down like waters; Rulers shall govern in justice; Hear, I pray you, ye heads of Israel, is it not for you to know justice?

The Hebrew word for the English “justice” is mishpat. It is used in various senses, such as, justice, order, law, right, legal right. Amos wanted mishpat established in the land. Micah asserted that Jehovah requires the individual to do mishpat, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with his God. Isaiah urged the people to do well and to seek mishpat; he pronounced woe upon those who turned aside the needy from mishpat; he declared Jehovah to be a God of mishpat. Jeremiah made plain that Jehovah exercises mercy and mishpat among the people.

Amos protested vigorously against special class privileges. He denounced the wealthy classes because of their social arrogance and economic injustice. In describing them, he points out a fundamental principle of social procedure. By their repression of those who are protesting, they “are heaping up violence”; that is, autocratic repression will never right injustice, but will foster ultimate revolution. Amos charged the rulers and all persons in positions of social power with the primary obligation of seeing that the poor and the outcast are protected from exploitation. What satire in a day when rulers were noted for their exploitation of the weak social classes!

A special responsibility rests upon judges. Amos severely arraigned all who turn judgment to wormwood and cast righteousness to the ground. Anathemas were heaped upon the takers of bribes, especially if they sit in places of public authority and wear the robes of law and patriotism. Hot denunciation fell also upon the private doer of injustice; upon the merchant who makes smaller the measure and perverts the false balances; upon all who trample in any way upon the needy, who trample on the head of the poor, who sell the righteous for silver, who turn aside the way of the humble.[IV-3] The concept of justice was vividly defined by Amos. Moreover, the shepherd prophet of Tekoa had the courage and ability to make the concept clear to all who would listen to him. Amos spoke for justice on the throne, on the judge’s bench, in the activities of the wealthy, in the transactions of merchants, and in the daily dealings of individuals with one another.

The campaign against injustice is carried forward by the first Isaiah, the statesman and orator. In the Kingdom of Judah, Isaiah found the same social evils that Amos had earlier preached against in the Northern kingdom. The boldness of his attack is startling:

Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: everyone loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither does the cause of the widow come unto them.[IV-4]

Then Isaiah enters upon perhaps the most open, daring, and indignant challenge to doers of social iniquity that is to be found anywhere:

Ye have eaten of the vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses. What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor?[IV-5]

After the manner of Amos, Isaiah protested vigorously against the judges and officers of the law who for a bribe vindicate the wicked and deprive the innocent man of his innocence. He denounced in no doubtful language the scribes who devote themselves to writing oppression, who turn aside the dependent from securing justice, who prevent Jehovah’s followers from receiving honest treatment, who prey upon widows and despoil orphans. Special condemnation was heaped upon those who set up iniquitous decrees.

Isaiah was a forerunner in an indirect sense of Henry George, for he vehemently rebuked land monopolists. His new principle is contained in a pronouncement of woes upon the persons who join house to house and add field to field, until there is no land left except for the monopolist who dwells as a lord over all. Isaiah protested against social injustice not only because of the harmful effects upon the individual but also because of the destructive and enervating national results.

After the fashion of Amos and Isaiah, Micah conceived of Jehovah as a just God. Micah depicts the social injustice of his day in terms of the persons who hate the good and love the evil, who pluck off the skin of the weak, even the flesh from the bones of Jehovah’s followers; “who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron.”[IV-6]

Micah unhesitatingly condemns the priests who are giving oracles for a reward, and the prophets who are divining for silver and who are trusting in Jehovah to protect them. Micah was perhaps the first person to describe the activities of the criminaloid which have been so carefully analyzed by Professor E. A. Ross. He grasped the concept of the social sinner who keeps within the law. He attacked wealthy landowners who crush the small holders; he spared neither high officials, nor priests. He presented his social concepts with precision and effectiveness.

The invectives against social injustice are carried into the teachings of Jeremiah. They appear later in the Deuteronomic Code. The Psalmists deprecated injustice. The wisdom teachers uttered profound warnings on the subject. The writer of Job deplored injustice. Throughout the Old Testament the almost countless references justify the conclusion that justice is the leading social concept which is presented by ancient Hebrew thought.

The Old Testament parallels its denunciation of unjust social relationships with diatribes against luxury. The evil effects of great riches are again and again described. Amos boldly pointed the finger of scorn at the idle rich, at those who “lie upon beds of ivory and stretch themselves upon their couches.”

The possession of vast wealth has usually been considered by those persons who are immediately concerned as an expression of divine favor. Amos exposed the fallacies in this belief, commanded the owners of wealth to assume social responsibility, and instantly to cease their unholy practices of securing gain.

Isaiah united with Amos in treating the possession of wealth not as a matter of favor or luck, but as a social trust. With one stroke Jeremiah tore off the gilded frame from about the life of the self-indulgent, luxury-loving King Jehoiakim. What powerful and autocratic monarch was ever charged with indulging in luxury in such relentless and uncompromising language as this?

Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by injustice....

Shalt thou reign, because thou closest thyself in cedar?...

But thine eyes and thine heart are not but for thy covetousness, and for to shed innocent blood, and for oppression, and for violence, to do it.

The ways of the dishonest rich are vividly described by Jeremiah. They set snares and catch people with lying. Their houses are full of evidences of their crooked dealings. They maintain themselves in luxury despite wanton expenditures by violating the needs of the fatherless and the needy.

Zephaniah was no less direct in pointing out the dangers in wealth. He declared that ill-gotten gains shall themselves become a prey and that the houses of the sinful rich shall become desolate. All their silver and their gold shall not be able to deliver them from their ultimate desolation.

In a beautiful and effective style the Wisdom writer in Proverbs unconsciously sums up the Old Testament philosophy concerning wealth:

Labor not to become rich; cease from thine own wisdom. Wilt thou set thine eyes upon that which is not? For riches certainly make themselves wings; they fly away as an eagle toward heaven.

The Old Testament with surprising uniformity supports the cause of labor. The welfare of the slave is frequently espoused. According to the Deuteronomic Code a runaway slave who was caught did not necessarily need to be returned to his owner. In fact, a person who harbored such a slave was expressly enjoined not to return him. By this injunction the rights of property and vested interests in slaves were ignored. Such an attitude was in opposition to the Code of Hammurapi and to the codes of vested interests throughout history. Slavery, however, was a well-established institution among the ancient Hebrews.[IV-8]

Although the law book of Hammurapi fixed the wages of laborers, the Old Testament law book restricted the hours of labor. Not only is the master to limit his labor to six days a week, but he is commanded to see that his slaves, male and female, do not work more than six days. Modern industry, even twentieth century manufacturing enterprise in the United States, has been persistently violating the labor rules of the Hebrew law-givers. Employers are commanded not to take advantage of poor and needy hired servants. They shall not oppress labor simply because they are powerful and labor is weak. Even the poor immigrant laborer is not to be exploited!

The first legislation in behalf of immigrants is found in Deuteronomy. Employers must respect the needs of alien workers. The foreigner shall not be oppressed. In the ordinary dealings between citizens and foreigners, justice must not be perverted. The Hebrew law makers even went so far as to issue the command: Love ye therefore the strangers, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

The institution of marriage is early accented in the Old Testament. In the second chapter of Genesis divine approval is placed upon marriage. In accordance with biological and social needs the institution of marriage is made sacred. Although the Hebrews are noted for their emphasis upon the responsibility of children to parents, the husband is ordered to forsake his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife. A man’s obligation to his helpmate exceeds even his obligations to his father and mother.

The concept of a long-suffering, patient husband is extensively elaborated in the teachings of Hosea. This prophet of the eighth century, B. C., demonstrated the sanctity of the marriage relation by remaining true to it even after his wife bore children of whom he was not the father. It is remarkable that Hosea should not have divorced his wife at once when he learned of her unfaithfulness to the marriage vow. Hosea taught, by example, that divorce should be the last resort after all the means of love have been used in trying to win back the erring partner.

The description of Hosea’s domestic difficulties, whether allegorical or not, is an early protest against the double standard of morals for man and woman. The attitude of people in modern society who blame and shun the fallen woman but permit the guilty man to continue to enjoy the company of respectable men and women is vigorously challenged by Hosea.

The last word against sex immorality was pronounced by Hosea. His description of the effects of widespread sex immorality is brief but incisive.

Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart.

Their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception.

Their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit.

In the Deuteronomic laws we find the duties of parents to children and of children to parents carefully outlined. Parents, primarily, are made responsible for moral and religious education in the home; and children are under obligations to obey their parents. This teaching is summed up in the injunction:[IV-10] Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee; and in the imprecation: Whoso curseth his father or his mother, his lamp shall be put out in obscure darkness.[IV-11]

The Wisdom writers dwell at considerable length upon the proper relationships of husbands and wives and of parents and children. They point the finger of shame at the quarrelsome woman. They warn against the woman whose chief asset is her beauty. A virtuous wife is a crown to her husband, but an immoral wife is as rottenness in his bones.[IV-12]

The Wisdom teachers do not minimize the importance of parental discipline. On occasion parents must act with force. Correction of children is commanded. The situation is pictured in the following language:[IV-13]

The word and reproof give wisdom; but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

In other words, it is necessary that parents assume a positive, definite attitude in regard to child nurture. They must see that their children are actually trained in the ways in which they should go. Even the loving parent must sometimes show his affection for his child by chastising the child. Only by such a procedure do children grow up to be a comfort to parents in their old age.

On the other hand the child must assume his share of responsibility. It is the part of wisdom for children to receive willingly the instruction that parents can give. The wise son loves parental advice. He listens gladly to his father; he does not despise his mother’s counsels.

It has already been intimated that the Old Testament writers frequently stress the importance of high standards of conduct for women. Amos rebuked the wives of nobles and the wealthy who fritter away their best impulses in idleness and sinful living and who dissipate their deepest instincts in debauchery. Amos and Isaiah agreed, apparently, that a nation’s welfare depends on the attitudes of its women. The wrath of God will fall upon women who are haughty, who walk with heads held high and with wanton glances, who go tripping along, “making a tinkling with their feet.”

The anti-social character of sin was pointed out in Genesis. Cain was the first to raise naïvely and blandly the question: Am I my brother’s keeper? Sinful living narrows the soul, increases selfishness, and vitiates a genuine social attitude. Sinning is repudiating social responsibility. Amos advanced the idea that selfish living was nothing less than disloyalty to one’s country. To dissipate one’s energy is to undermine one’s usefulness to his country.

Intemperance was deplored. Isaiah has been called the first temperance reformer of the world. His impassioned and classic utterances are well represented by the following lines:[IV-14]

Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them.

Isaiah warned especially the priests and prophets of the evils of intemperance. Wine will swallow them up, it will put them out of the way, it will cause them to err in wisdom and to stumble in judgment.

In both Leviticus and Numbers the danger that lurks in the wine cup is recognized. The special servants of Jehovah are commanded to separate themselves from wine and strong drink. In Proverbs the Wisdom writer declares:[IV-15] Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging and whoever is deceived thereby is not wise. The same authority admonishes rulers and judges not to drink wine lest they forget the law and pervert the judgment of the afflicted. On the other hand, a reversion to a lower standard is made in Proverbs when the legitimacy of giving strong drink to the poor and miserable is recognized, so that they may forget their poverty and misery.[IV-16] The general teaching, however, is that strong drink leads to social inefficiency and the disintegration of human personalities.

The cities of refuge represent a new social idea. A person who has taken life without intention may flee to and find protection in the cities of refuge. The altar and the sanctuary are designated as places to which persons may flee who are not wilful murderers.[IV-17]

The social concept of democracy occupies an interesting place in the Old Testament literature. In the days of Abraham the kinship group prevailed. Within this group there were many households, ruled by patriarchs. Within the kinship groups high standards of honor were maintained, but anti-social attitudes toward outside and foreign groups were encouraged. It was justifiable, for example, to lie to foreign groups and even to kill the representatives of such peoples.

The concept of democracy developed pari passu with the evolution of the idea of Jehovah. In the minds of the Hebrews, Jehovah, or Jahweh, was first a tribal god, then a national god; and finally, a universal God, that is, a being who is interested in the welfare of all peoples, and not simply in the welfare of “the chosen people.”

The Hebrew conception of the state contained several democratic elements. The fundamental purpose of the state was declared to be the welfare not of an irresponsible monarch, but of the people themselves. This idea stands out in marked contradiction to the practices of the Canaanites, who submitted themselves helplessly to capricious and autocratic rulers.

The Hebrews treated the state as a part of a theocracy. But when Jehovah spoke, he usually arraigned false wealth, arbitrary political power, selfish ambition of kings, luxurious living, and special privileges. Jehovah spoke for the oppressed, the poor, the defeated, the laborer,[IV-8] in short, for humanity.

Consequently, loyalty to the nation was positive and persistent. Consider this statement from Psalm 137 of Hebrew patriotism on the part of exiled Hebrews who longed for their native land:

By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.

We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof....

If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.

If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.

According to Hosea, Jehovah charged the citizens of the land to deal with one another on the basis of fidelity and true love, and to stamp out all social evils, such as perjury, stealing, committing adultery, and mob violence. The writer of the Book of Job portrayed a good citizen as one who delivers the poor, who helps those about to perish, who causes the widow’s heart to sing for joy.[IV-18] He is eyes to the blind, feet to the lame, and a father to the needy. He searches out the cause of social evils. Moreover, he breaks the jaws of the unrighteous, and plucks the prey from their mouths. He defends the blameless. He does not put his confidence in gold or rejoice at his enemies when evils beset them or they are destroyed. It may be truly said that fundamental ideas of democracy were originated by the Hebrews.

Amos raised the question of internationalism. For the first time in history, the idea of a universal God was postulated. Amos pronounced Jehovah the God of other peoples besides the Israelites. “Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt?” said Jehovah, “and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?”[IV-19] The day would come, according to Isaiah and Micah, when Jehovah would judge over many peoples and rebuke strong nations. The conception of Jehovah as a Being who transcends both time and space gave to the Hebrew mind at its best a broader cast and a more universal comprehension than the peoples of contemporary tribes and nations possessed.

The concept of universal peace was invented by the Hebrews. Isaiah and Micah share the honor of being the first persons to advocate world peace, and to predict the day when all nations shall worship a just God and thereby be enabled to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning-hooks, when nation shall not stand against nation, and when the methods of warfare shall no longer be taught. The spirit of hatred and of blind, selfish antagonism shall pass away. No modern writer has ever spoken the doom of militarism so trenchantly as the Old Testament prophet, Isaiah, who said, according to the translation by Charles Foster Kent:[IV-20]

“For every boot of the warrior with noisy tread,

And every war-cloak drenched in the blood of the slain,

Will be completely burned up as fuel for the flame.”

The Hebrews strongly emphasized laws as a social dynamic. Love will make socialized individuals. It will demonstrate to a person his responsibilities as a member of society and his duties to his fellow human beings. It will stifle hatred. It will even return good for evil. It is the cardinal virtue and an eternal principle of right living.

The Old Testament teaches social salvation. Jehovah is fundamentally interested in the improvement of social and living conditions. He commanded the socialization of all human relationships. His teachings, as given by the prophets and Wisdom writers, take cognizance of the influence of environment upon character.

Hebrew social thought deals largely with social injustice. Social evils are vividly described and evil-doers, chiefly kings and judges, are vigorously and fearlessly arraigned. The family is made the chief social institution, and love is crowned servant of all. Education is centered in the home, and moral discipline is made the keynote of education; hence the Hebrews survived the Greeks and Romans. A new and perfect social order, directed by a just Jehovah, and motivated throughout all its individual and social relationships by love, is prophesied.

Chapter V
Plato and Grecian Social Thought

In turning to a study of Grecian civilization we find a development of social thought which on the rational side excels in many particulars the social thinking of the Hebrews, but which in its affective elements falls far below the quality of Hebrew social thought. We may expect to find, therefore, in Grecian social thought important new contributions which are complementary to the legacies from the Hebrews, and which when taken in conjunction with the early Christian forms of Hebrew social thought constitute the main foundations of modern social thought.

The thought life of the Greeks reached the crescendo in the idealism of Plato (427–347 B. C.) and the opportunism of Aristotle (384–322 B. C.). In an idea-world Plato depicted an ideal society. After studying 158 constitutions, Aristotle formulated rules of practical social procedure. Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Politics are the two leading source books of Grecian social thought.

Plato and Aristotle were the first two thinkers in history who left definitely organized analyses of societary life. Although in point of time they stand close together, in content of social reasoning they are at many places antagonistic. However, their high rank as thinkers need not blind anyone to the fact that their social thought was in part an outgrowth of theories held by predecessors. Antecedent to Plato was Socrates and the Sophists; antecedent to these scholars was a large number of thinkers who, incidentally to their main intellectual efforts, gave expression to isolated but significant social ideas.

As early as the ninth century, B. C., Lycurgus declared that the state owned the child, and urged a system of education which would prepare the child for the state. Despite, however, of a similar emphasis by many later Greek leaders, “Hellas” never developed a genuine national unity. She experienced a temporary national patriotism only when attacked by the Persians and at the seasons when the national games were at their height.

It was Hesiod, the founder of Greek didactic poetry, who about 700 B. C. described the Golden Age and the subsequent ages of society. Hesiod protested mildly against the social injustice in his time.[V-1] In the following century, Anaximander, the philosopher, and Theognis, the elegiac poet,[V-2] discussed the value to society of providing that children should be well born and well trained—the fundamental concepts of current eugenics and euthenics.

Solon, the Athenian lawgiver, about 590 B. C., began to put into legislative practice certain ideas of social reform, thereby preventing revolution. At that time it was customary to sell persons into slavery who could not pay their debts—a procedure which Solon ended. The cost of living was very high, consequently Solon forbade the export of food products and thereby reduced prices for the consumer. He introduced a measure which today would be considered revolutionary, namely, the limiting of the amount of land which an individual might hold. For the classification of people on the basis of wealth, he substituted a classification on the basis of income. He lessened the severity of the laws of Draco, and in other ways increased the freedom of the individual. Although Solon’s régime was followed by a tyranny, Solon is credited with initiating certain essential ideas of democracy.

After the Tyrants, Athens under the leadership of men like Cleisthenes became “a pure democracy.” Cleisthenes democratized the Athenian Constitution. For the four phylae he substituted ten phylae, or units of government, thus securing a new and better distribution of authority. He is credited with introducing ostracism as a mode of punishment; he, it is alleged, was the first individual to be ostracised by his government.

The fifth century precursors of Plato and Aristotle were numerous. Aeschylus (525–456 B. C.), the first of the famous Athenian tragic poets, described in general terms the evolution of civilized society.[V-3] The artistic historian, Herodotus, developed through his imagination a world point of view. From an almost unlimited store of legendary and ethnological materials, he elaborated a planetary theme which had its beginning in the Trojan War and its culmination in the conflict between Eastern and Western civilizations. The basic social principle in the writings of Herodotus is that downfall awaits the insolent autocrats of earth. Herodotus describes the customs and habits of the peoples[V-4] whom he visited on his numerous foreign travels in such a detailed and elaborate fashion that he has been styled the world’s first descriptive sociologist.

Pericles (495?-429 B. C.), perhaps the greatest statesman of Greece, furthered the cause of democracy. His conception of democracy led him to make the entire body of citizens eligible to office-holding. Pericles initiated a social program which in certain aspects was paternalistic. He instituted the plan of granting allowances for performing public duties. As a result, unselfish public service was minimized and political morale was weakened. Pericles was led into this error[V-5] by the desire to compete for public esteem with Cimon, who made extensive gifts to the poor in the form of dinners and clothes.

In his tragedies, Euripides (480–406 B. C.), aroused interest in the experiences, not of legendary characters as many of his predecessors had done, but of the ordinary members of Athenian society. He was a spokesman for the emancipation of woman;[V-6] his writings reveal the social changes that were occurring in the fifth century in Athens. Likewise, the comedies of Aristophanes reflected social changes, and, in addition, caricatured social conditions.

Hippocrates, the so-called father of medical science, wrote several works which attracted the studious attention of Plato. He gave as the first of two chief causes of disease, the influence of climate, seasons, weather on the individual.[V-7] He might be called the first anthropo-geographer. At any rate he opened the field which has recently been so well covered by Ellen C. Semple in her Influences of Geographic Environment.

By their disconcerting and sceptical teachings the Sophists, who also lived in the fifty century, B. C., stimulated the intellectual activities of Socrates. The influence of the Sophist leaders, such as Protagoras, Gorgas, Callicles, Thrasymachus, brought forward the problem of training pupils to solve civic questions rather than scientific or philosophical questions. According to Plato, Callicles believed that government was an instrument for exploiting the masses. Thrasymachus argued that so-called justice is that type of activity which favors the interest of the strongest members of society, and that might determines what is called right.[V-8] Epaminondas, the Theban statesman, personified in his own career an unusually high interpretation of the concept of patriotism, perhaps a more unselfish expression of patriotism than is represented by any other political spokesman of the Hellenic states.

The argument of the Sophists that what is best for the individual is best for society aroused the antagonism of Socrates (469–399 B. C.), whose ideas are reported by Plato and Xenophon. Socrates, the son of an Athenian sculptor, asserted that the qualities of justice, wisdom, temperance, and courage, which make a person a good member of society and which increase social welfare, are the same qualities which make a person a good individual and secure his individual advancement. Socrates spent many years at the market places, on the streets where people congregate and at the public resorts in studying the actions of individuals and in engaging them in conversation concerning their moral life. As a result Socrates evolved a significant social philosophy. The heart of this philosophy is found in the statements that virtue is knowledge, not in the sense of mere memorized facts but of a thorough understanding. If a person understands completely the good and evil phases of a proposed act, he will choose the right. For example, when one is completely convinced of the harmful effects of poor teeth, he will employ the regular services of a dentist to keep his teeth in good condition. When he perceives the evil effects of dishonesty, he will establish honest habits. The conclusion might be drawn that social virtue rests upon societary knowledge.

Socrates was convinced that something was fundamentally wrong with Athenian society. Everywhere he saw that ignorance led to vice. Only in the mechanical and professional activities did he discover correct action, but this was preceded by correct knowledge.[V-9]

A good carpenter is an individual who thoroughly understands carpentry; a good man is an individual who truly knows the value of good actions. Similarly, it might be said that a good urban resident is an individual who deeply appreciates what it means to have a city of mutually developing people.

Socrates wished to make all men intelligent. His teachings raised the deep-seated social question: How can social organization be made highly advantageous to the individual, and the individual made so aware of these advantages that he will always act socially?[V-10] Inasmuch as Socrates left no writings, it is impossible to explain with certainty his teachings. Fortunately, he left a permanent impress of his personality on the lives of his associates, and particularly, upon his able and brilliant pupil, Plato.

In the fundamental dictum that virtue is knowledge, Socrates is theoretically correct, but practically he ignores the overpowering influence that oftentimes is exerted by the instincts and established habits. He underestimates the power that is represented by a deeply ingrained instinct or a habit which has existed for several years. Instincts and nearly all habits are firmly established neurologically, whereas knowledge is often new to the individual and merely a veneer on the surface of the individual’s life. The acquisition of knowledge is no guarantee that instincts centuries old will be promptly overcome or re-directed.

Furthermore, with a young child the instinctive tendencies begin to assert themselves and to give direction to the growth of the character of the child, long before his mentality has unfolded and developed to the point where he is capable of genuinely understanding the real meaning of many forms of activity, and where many phases of knowledge are entirely beyond his ability to comprehend.

Little is known concerning Plato’s early life and training. The most influential factors were the life and teachings of Socrates. The strong Socratic personality left its indelible impress upon the thought-life of Plato. As a young man, Plato became greatly interested in Athenian social and civic life. When he was perhaps twenty-three years of age, the self-styled “Fair and Good” rulers came into control of Athens. The failure of these men, whom history calls the Thirty Tyrants, to govern wisely, produced an attitude of thorough disgust in the mind of Plato. Further, the legalized murder of Socrates by the restored democracy in 399 B. C. aroused the bitter antagonism of Plato to the existing forms of government. In the years which followed the death of Socrates, popular rule produced loose and licentious social conditions. As a consequence, Plato turned to the realms of the thought world in order to find a perfect society. As a result of his contact with every-day life and government, Plato evolved in his mind an ideal republic.

The Socratic principle that virtue is knowledge was accepted by Plato. In Plato’s thinking this proposition led to the generalization that education is the most important thing in the world. Upon this doctrine more than any other, Plato’s twentieth century influence thrives.

What shall be the nature of a world-molding education? Theoretically, Plato gives his answer in his epistemology. Ideas are the ruling forces in life. Over against the uncertain fluctuating sense world, Plato set up a realm of eternal, changeless ideas. An individual man is simply an ephemeral expression of Man. Plato created a concept of unchangeable reality which he found in Ideas. These, alone, are the permanent, worth-while elements which man must seek to know and understand.

Because of his aristocratic attitudes and of his early disgust with the experiments in democracy in his day, Plato turned away in his social philosophy from the direct study of the people, such as had engaged the attention of Socrates, to a search for a just society in the world of ideas. This line of thinking found expression chiefly in the Republic, written during Plato’s mature manhood. A discussion of these idealistic concepts is found in the Laws and the Politicus, the latter being written in Plato’s old age and representing a partial reaction from the idealism of the Republic. Because of its consideration of nearly every aspect of social life from a specific viewpoint, the Republic may be called the first treatise in social philosophy. While it falls below the social writings of the Hebrews in its dynamic and practical phases, it excels them in its unity, its profundity, and its philosophic quality.

Inasmuch as Plato had turned away from an inviting though strenuous public career to a private life of scholarly thought, his perfect society assumed characteristics that were far from mundane. Because Plato lived in a day of small political groups and in a country of limited size, he limited his ideal society—to a group represented by 5040 heads of families. Consequently it is impossible to apply Plato’s social ideas with accuracy to a modern metropolitan center of 5,000,000 people, or to a nation-state of 100,000,000 people. Several phases of Plato’s thought, however, were given a practical turn in the Laws. In revealing Plato’s social philosophy, the Politicus, or Statesman ranks third.[V-12]

In Plato’s ideal society there is a hierarchy of rank, which includes three classes of people: the rulers, or true guardians; the soldiers, or auxiliaries; and the artisans, or the industrial and agricultural workers. In introducing the ideal state Plato uses mature individuals.[V-13] Out of the needs and through the activities of fully-developed persons, Plato builds an ideal commonwealth.

No individual is self-sufficing. Each has his peculiar bias, or ability. By uniting, all will profit. There are not only specialized classes, but there is specialization within the occupational groups. An essential rule for the building of a just society is that each individual shall find his place in the social order and shall fulfil his special function. Plato recognized the need for correlating the diversities of nature and the different types of occupation.[V-14]

The common people are engaged in the foundational occupations as skilled artisans. The advantages of a special education are not open to them. They receive the common education, including gymnastic and music training. But, in accordance with the aristocratic strain in Plato’s social philosophy, it is useless to try to give a higher education to that large proportion of the population who are mentally incapable of profiting by higher education. The logic is good but the major premise is faulty in this pedagogical rule.

The second class, the soldiers, will maintain order at home, repel invaders, and conduct territorial wars. The growth of population will create a demand for more territory. Other states likewise will need more territory, and war will become inevitable.[V-15] Plato frankly admits the territorial basis of wars. From this factor he sees no escape, although he declares peace to be better than war.[V-16] In his Tamias and Critias he pictured a peace-state, “Atlantis.”

The soldier’s occupation is an art which requires years of training. The chief physical trait of a true soldier is courage. The social psychological significance of a military régime is that soldiers are continually inciting their country to go to war. Such a régime raises up enemies against itself, many and mighty, and results either in ruining the specific people or in enslaving the foes of these people.[V-17] On the other hand, the non-soldier classes, since they prefer to lead a peaceful life and seek to conduct their affairs quietly, unduly endeavor to avoid war. By degrees they become unwarlike; their children develop a like attitude. Eventually, they find themselves at the mercy of their enemies and are enslaved.[V-18]

Among the members of the state there will be a few especially able individuals, destined by birth and reinforced by training to be rulers and true guardians of the welfare of all.[V-19] They are lovers of wisdom and philosophy. Flabbiness of character, drunkenness, selfishness are unbecoming to them.[V-20] Selfish living is condemned.[V-21] The guardians are characterized, according to Plato, by the greatest eagerness to do what is for the good of their country. They show utter repugnance to anything that is contrary to the best interests of the state.[V-22]

The guardians, however, rule aristocratically.[V-23] They do not inquire of the citizens the kind of laws which they want passed, for the same reason that a physician does not ask the patient the kind of medicine which he wants. In the Republic, the Laws, and the other dialogues where the nature of rulers and philosophers is discussed, Plato’s “best men” show an indifference to earthly or material things and uniformly seek righteousness, even social righteousness.

The candidates for guardianship receive first the elements of education. At twenty years of age they must pass a general education in order that they may go on with a special course, including arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy.[V-24] At thirty they are subjected to a further examination, after which the successful individuals devote five years to the study of philosophy. At thirty-five they enter practical life, hold minor offices, balance their theoretical training by practical studies, and submit to diverse temptations.[V-25] They undergo a civil service examination which extends over a period of years. At the close they are subjected to a final series of three-fold tests. The first test is that of logic; they must argue successfully that it pays an individual, especially a guardian, to serve society. The second test is that of fear; they are faced with dangers, for example, the dangers to life, which beset those who undertake to rule without favoritism and without compromising their principles when confronted with the ambitions and desires of powerful selfish interests. The third test is that of pleasure; they are submitted to all the pleasures which thrill the heart of man. In other words, they must show proof that the highest interest of the state is to be the ruling interest of their lives.[V-26] Neither pain nor threats must affect their loyalty. The temptations which come from pleasures and enchantments must not disturb their self-control or weaken their qualities of guardianship. From these requirements it will be seen that Plato provided for a long period of intensive and extensive training for the rulers. His idea varied widely from the ancient theory of the divine right of kings and from the current practice of distributing political spoils to friends.

Plato saw that the rulers when once selected and installed in office would be tempted to become avaricious at the expense of the state. Instead of becoming and remaining allied to all the citizens, they will be prone to become tyrannical.[V-27] Plato perceived that it would be difficult, after good rulers had been selected, to keep them on the plane of good rulership. In order to preserve their virtue as guardians and to remove the powerful temptation to wink at exploitation that is carried on by the economically powerful, Plato indicated certain protective devices. The guardians shall be permitted no private property beyond a few incidentals. They shall not live in private houses, but shall dwell and eat together. They shall receive a fixed salary, sufficient to meet necessary expenses but no more. They shall not be allowed to touch gold and silver or to wear gold and silver ornaments. They shall be taught that they are made of divine gold and silver, and therefore shall have no need of the earthly dross. They shall not be subject to pollution from any earthly contacts. If the guardians should acquire lands or moneys or homes of their own, they would be unable to give their undivided attention to the state, and they would become not guardians of the welfare of the citizens, but tyrants, plotting and being plotted against.[V-28] In his zealous care that the rulers might not be distracted from guarding with undivided attention the interests of the state, Plato advocated community of wives and children for the rulers.[V-29]

The question arose: Will the people be content to accept the division of the population into hierarchal classes? In reply, Plato suggested that the power of public opinion be utilized, and that all the inhabitants of the state be taught that they are brothers, that is, children of their common Mother Earth. This instruction will serve to keep the masses in a humble attitude. Further, they are to be told that different metals have been used by Mother Earth in making different individuals. Those persons in whose make-up gold has been mingled have the power of command and may become rulers. Others who are made of silver may become auxiliaries, or soldiers; while the masses, being made of brass and iron, are destined to become artisans.[V-30]

The objection is raised that people will not believe this “audacious fiction.” The truth of the objection is admitted, and a solution of the problem is offered. Teach the children the gold, silver, brass and iron fiction; and they will believe it. When they grow to maturity, they will tell their children, who in turn will teach it. Posterity, thus, will accept it.[V-31] In this way Plato founded his social philosophy upon education. Plato made clear that any kind of social or economic theory can be foisted upon a whole people through the utilization of the educational processes. A few selfish exploiters, by controlling the educational system, can ruin a nation in a generation.

The guardians are instructed to examine the children in order to discover of what metals they are made. Plato admitted a democracy of talent in the sense that talent is likely to appear in the children of brass and iron parents, while gold parents may beget brass and iron children. If a gold child is found among the children of the artisans, he is to be encouraged and trained to become a guardian. If a brass and iron child is found among the children of the gold parents, he must descend the social scale and be trained for husbandry or artisanship.[V-32] Plato foresaw the fact, now scientifically established, that geniuses are born indiscriminately among all classes of society from the highest to the lowest. They are just as likely to be born in the hovel or overcrowded tenement as in the spacious and luxuriant palace. Consequently, society should seek out potential genius and give it opportunities commensurate with its possibilities and not allow its dynamic and divine spark to be snuffed out in a heavy-laden tenement atmosphere.

Furthermore, according to Plato, the guardians are to seek out the imperfect children and put them out of the way as easily as possible and without attracting public attention.[V-33] If the capable must devote their energies to the care of imperfect children, they would presumably be wasting their ability and would be prevented from devoting themselves to upbuilding the state. This doctrine neglects the consideration of the harsh, unsympathetic attitude which it would engender. Although rigorously eugenic, the doctrine is undemocratic, unchivalric, and unChristian. It is thoroughly aristocratic.

The guardians are to supervise marriage. Plato especially deplores the fact that almost all persons choose their life-partners in marriage without proper regard to the kind of children that will be procreated.[V-34] The marriage relationship should not be primarily an individual affair, but should be governed by the thought of the children that are not yet born and by due regard to the welfare of the state and society.[V-35] The true purpose of marriage is not found in wealth or power or rank, but in the procreation of healthy minded children. Marriage is sacred in the highest degree because it is socially necessary. Plato deplores class marriages, that is, marriage within temperamentally similar groups. Persons of gentle nature seek persons of gentle nature; the courageous seek the courageous. It would be better if the gentle would seek the courageous in marriage, and vice versa.[V-36] Marriage is sacred, and hence should be subjected to strict eugenic safeguards.

The guardians shall prevent the extremes of poverty and riches. With far-sighted social wisdom Plato points out that poverty is the parent of meanness and viciousness, and that wealth leads to luxury and indolence.[V-37] Both result in discontent and both cause the deterioration of the arts. The poor man cannot properly equip or train himself, or enter into his work painstakingly; the rich man will grow careless and no longer act diligently when he comes into the possession of unlimited wealth.[V-38]

In the acquisition of wealth the laws of imitation function powerfully. One person accumulates property; others are immediately stimulated to do likewise. In consequence, all the citizens may become lovers of money.[V-39] But a money-loving public would be disastrous to the state.

The larger the amount of wealth that an individual accumulates, the more he will want to accumulate. The momentum of the desire for money-getting is socially destructive. The more the individual is hypnotised by the wealth-getting delusion, the less attention does he give to the maintenance of virtue. When the desire for virtue is in competition with the desire for riches, the former decreases as the latter increases.[V-40]

When the state becomes established on a property basis, the rich exercise power and the poor are deprived of it.[V-41] In ordinary times the rich are as indifferent to the welfare of the poor as to the development of virtue, but in times of group crises they will not despise the poor. In the days of prosperity and peace the poor man is given the hindmost position, but when war comes, “the wiry, sunburnt poor man” is placed in battle at the side of the wealthy man[V-42]—and social democracy obtains. But in battle the poor man fights longer and better than the rich man “who has never spoilt his complexion and has plenty of superfluous flesh.” In the words of the poor man Plato draws the astounding conclusion that many persons are rich because no one has had the courage to despoil them.[V-43] At this point Plato has given a striking explanation of the rise of socialism, syndicalism, and economic radicalism.

When you see paupers, according to Plato, you may safely conclude that somewhere there are also present thieves, robbers of temples, and malefactors.[V-44] The causes of pauperism are given as (1) a lack of proper education, (2) ill-training, and (3) unjust social laws and an unjust constitution of the state.[V-45]

Plato suggested two instruments for preventing extreme wealth and poverty—legislation and education. Each individual is to be guaranteed a minimum amount of property. He may acquire as much as four times this amount, but above the maximum a one hundred per cent excess tax operates.[V-46] Plato planned a form of communism, not primarily to secure the material well-being of the state, but to safeguard the rulers against falling before selfish temptations. Plato also wanted to protect the state from splitting asunder because of the distractions that arise from labor-capital controversies. By educational means the children are to be trained to be satisfied with the necessaries of life[V-47]—at least some children are to be so trained. Parents should bequeath to their children not riches but the spirit of reverence.[V-48]

The guardians shall be censors. They shall establish a censorship over the arts in order to protect the children from seeing indecent sights and hearing vulgar sounds. The works of fiction shall be censored in order to prevent the children from reading and adopting bad ideas. The creative artists shall be prevented from exhibiting forms of vice and intemperance, in order that the future guardians may not grow up in an atmosphere contaminated by images of moral deformity, and in order that all children may develop in an environment of fair sights and should and may receive unhindered and unhampered the good in everything.[V-49]

The guardians shall protect the mores. When Plato described a perfect state, any change in the established customs would mean retrogression.[V-50] Hence, the rulers should jealously guard the customs, allowing no insidious innovations. Further, if any change is permitted to take place in small things, there may be no stopping the spirit of change.

Plato rested his argument for an ideal society upon the education of wise leaders. Their judgment is better even than government by law. Law is too rigid and inflexible. In view of the changeable character of human conditions, which Plato recognized, no final or absolute laws can be laid down.[V-51] The chief advantage of laws, however, is not that they make men honest but that they make men act uniformly, and hence in a socially reliable way. Laws are to be respected because they represent the ripe fruits of long experience.[V-52]

Considerable attention is given to penology in the Laws.[V-53] In view of the sanctity of custom and of the necessity of law, obedience is a highly important social virtue. In theory Plato is modern and scientific, for he advocated punishment, not as a vindictive but as a preventive and reformatory measure.[V-54] Reformation is the true aim of punishment.[V-55] In practice Plato is rigid and harsh. For example, beggars are simply to be sent out of the city and out of the country.[V-56] The death penalty is utilized freely.[V-57]

Plato opened all occupations to women as well as men, even the highest, that of ruling.[V-58] The only difference between the sexes that needs to be recognized occupationally is that men are stronger physically than women.[V-59] Women, like men, vary in occupational temperament. One individual is fitted for one kind of vocation; another, for some other type of work.

Although the fundamental importance of bearing children is appreciated, Plato observed that it is unnecessary that a woman devote her whole life to the rearing of children. All women should have opportunities for the development of their personalities. Those women who have special talent for public service should enter thereupon. Although a social conservative Plato admits an innovation in the ideal republic—universal woman suffrage.

Since women have the same duties as men, they receive the same opportunities for training. Women must share in the toils of war and the defense of their country.[V-60] Women are priestesses;[V-61] they serve on committees for the regulation of marriage, and for deciding divorce cases.[V-62]