--- title: Improvement Era description: Monthly periodical of the Mormon church, 1897 onward. This library holds the issues of November 1897 to December 1930. authors: - Carver, Thomas Nixon collections: - periodicals tags: - magazine - improvement-era periodical: Improvement Era volume: 25 number: 10 published: 1922-08 publisher: Young Men’s Mutual Improvement Associations publisher_place: Salt Lake City language: en type: magazine reference: 'Thomas Nixon Carver, "How Much Civilization Can We Stand?", *Improvement Era* 25, no. 10 (August 1922): 861–877.' source: url: https://archive.org/details/improvementera25010unse transcription: Transcribed from the Internet Archive scan of each issue (the item for each issue is named in the issue's own source); unnumbered advertising leaves are omitted, printed page numbers are kept as page markers. identifier: improvementera25010unse start_page: 861 end_page: 877 rights: status: public-domain basis: US publication 1930 or earlier (published 1922-08) source: https://archive.org/details/improvementera25010unse publication_year: 1922 note: The Internet Archive item metadata carries a blanket "© Copyright by Intellectual Reserve, Inc." notice. The library owner judged it inapplicable because this issue was published in 1922, before 1931; a scan-level notice does not restore copyright. --- # How Much Civilization Can We Stand? IMPROVEMENT ERA Vol. XXV AUGUST, 1922 No. 10 How Much Civilization can we Stand? By Professor Thomas Nixon Carver, Ph.D., LL.D. [On April 5, 1922, at the inauguration ceremonies of Dr. George Thomas, president of the University of Utah, Professor Thomas Nixon Carver, author of a number of excellent works on economics, and Professor of Economics at Harvard University, addressed the large audience on this theme. He was introduced by Governor Charles R. Mabey. By the courte- ous consent of Dr. Carver, the Improvement Era is permitted to print his address in full. The subject! under discussion will benefit all who read and study it, particularly such young men as have ambition and desire to become leaders in the community. It points out the need of loyal effort in support of law, and adherence to the higher standards of good citizen- ship, character, and civilization. It urges production by honest labor, dependability, co-operation, and self-discipline, and closes with a forceful appeal to action: "Throw back your shoulders, pull in your chin, and go to it."— Editors.] Ladies and gentlemen: On this joyous occasion, it is fit- ting that those of us who come from a distance should join with those who live nearby in extending; our felicitations to this University, and our congratulations to your new President, who has already begun a most successful career. It is also fitting that on such an occasion, we should turn our attention to some of the serious problems before the world, for the solution of which universities exist. We need to take stock of our civiliza- tion, and try and find out, if we can, how far we ourselves are capable of carrying it on. Therefore I shall discuss in your hearing the important theme, How much of this which we call civilization are we able to stand? What Civilization Means I find a convenient text for what I am about to say in a story of an old savage who, after having lived most of his life under civilized conditions, decided in his old age to return to his native tribe, declaring that he had tried civilization for forty 862 IMPROVEMENT ERA years and it was not worth the trouble. A great deal of the philosophy of civilization is bound up in that remark and in that incident. Civilization is trouble. It is a great deal of trouble to be civilized. Only those people can be civilized who are capable of taking trouble. If we are the kind of men to whom taking thought for the morrow is too painful, if we are the kind of men who would rather endure the physical hardships of savagery than the pain of taking thought, we shall have passed our limit in civilization. If, however, we are the kind of people who would rather endure the pain of thinking than the physical hardships of savage life, then we can become civilized. It all depends on what kind of people we are. From among the various definitions of civilization — for there are many good ones — I shall adopt, for the purpose of this discussion, the on'e which says that "Civilization is the art of living together comfortably in large numbers." I shall not take the time to prove that this requires many kinds of behavior that are not necessary for those who live alone, or even in small groups. The only question is, how far are we able or willing to modify our behavior in such ways as will permit us to live together in large numbers? Savages are limited to small groups, not because of outward and physical conditions, but because of their inability, or unwillingness, to behave in such ways as would permit them to live in large groups. Civilized men manage to live together comfortably in large groups be- cause they are willing and able to modify their behavior to suit the necessities of the case. The question, How much civilization can we stand? becomes, therefore, the question, How far are we able or willing so to modify our behavior? It goes without saying that the ability to procure the means of subsistence is a vital factor in the problem of living together in large numbers. This is not altogether a matter of technical knowledge of superior processes of production. There have been great civilizations with very little of what we now call technical knowledge. There has never been a great civilization without the willingness to give up the wild, free life of the plains or the woods and to accept the humdrum, routine life of settled agriculture and industry. Modification of Human Behavior Necessary to Civilization This requires a fundamental and somewhat irksome change in human behavior. Some of us are only enabled to accept the change gradually. We stick to our routine jobs and behave like civilized men during the greater part of the year, only on con- dition that we can break away and behave like wild men for a few weeks of vacation. Every spring, about the time the frost HOW MUCH CIVILIZATION CAN WE STAND? 863 is out of the ground, every urbanite with a rural ancestry is seized with an impulse to dig in his garden. If this impulse is thwarted, it may break out in worse forms. Even where it is gratified there is danger that the dregs of his still more remote ancestry may be stirred. When he begins to dig, he will find worms and they may arouse a still more primal impulse to go fishing — to the ruin of his garden! If it were possible for each and everyone of us to do exactly what he liked, and at the same time to get exactly what he de- sired, we should be a most fortunate people. In fact, we should have a real earthly paradise. We could all live by giving and receiving gifts. For every desire there would be an appropriate gift offered for the pleasure of the giver. But if there are de- sires which cannot be satisfied with gifts which are the products of purely spontaneous and pleasurable effort, one of two things is necessary. Either some desires must remain unsatis- fied, or some one must do something that he does not like to do. The chances are that both will be necessary. This alone would necessitate a modification of human be- havior in the interest of civilization. To exercise frugality and discrimination in the satisfaction of desires is a kind of behavior which is very irksome to some people, and yet it is necessary if we are to be civilized. To work when we would rather rest or play, or to do one kind of work when we would rather do some other kind, or to stick to one job when we would like a change, are all likewise irksome and necessary. A race or a people who can not modify its behavior in any of these direc- tions is not likely to produce subsistence enough to support large numbers, to say nothing of satisfying other desires than for subsistence. How Men May be Induced to do What They do not Like to Do How can men be induced to do things which they do not like to do? There are only two ways: one is to offer them a reward; the other is to compel them by authority. The civil- ized world has come to rely more and more upon the offering of rewards, and less and less upon the use of authority and force, though there has been a fundamental relapse in Russia. More- over, it has been customary among the more civilized races to leave the matter largely to the people concerned. The individ- ual who desires something which no one cares to supply for the pleasure of it, is left to offer such rewards as he feels like offer- ing a makeweight to overcome the disinclination to work; and the individual who is asked to do the work, to accept such rewards as he feels like accepting. If these two individuals can 864 IMPROVEMENT ERA agree, the work is done and the desire satisfied; otherwise, the work is left undone and the desire unsatisfied. In general, where the average individual does not regard work as too irksome, or is willing to do work for a reasonable consideration, a great deal of work will be done, and many desires will be satisfied. This will generally mean that a large population can be supported, — in short, that men can live to- gether comfortably in large numbers. Where the average in- dividual is not willing to behave in this way, civilization is im- possible. Under this system of free bargaining there will, of course, be a few very fortunate individuals who enjoy doing what others de- sire to have done and are willing to pay for. To such a person the world is a paradise where he can get what he desires as a result of doing what he likes to do. If all were in that situa- tion we could all live by giving gifts to one another, — gifts whose production always gave pleasure to the producers and were al- ways sufficient in quantity and variety to satisfy every desire of every consumer. The improbability of such a perfect har- mony between the inclinations of all workers and the desires of all consumers is so great as to amount to an impossibility. This is what makes it necessary to do one of three things: first, to pay for work and products; second, to command men to work and produce; or third, to go hungry. Only Two Alternatives — Pay or Force Any society that chooses to repudiate the method of getting men to do what they do not like to do by paying them for it, has only two alternatives left. It must conscript an industrial army and carry on production under authority and compulsion, or it must reduce production to such limits as men will carry on for pleasure and reduce its consumption accordingly. There is no other choice. To limit production to such things and such quantities as can be produced for pleasure, is to limit sat- isfaction considerably, and reduce populations to very small numbers. The thinning out process would involve wholesale starvation, which has serious disadvantages, in spite of its obvious advantages. The other alternative, namely, the industrial army, whose conscripted laborers work under authority and compulsion, also has serious disadvantages. It has, of course, certain obvious advantages, such as the enforced equality — at least of all pri- vates— and the elimination of unemployment. But the adjust- ment oi- supply to demand, or of the stock in the commissariat to the desires of the consumers, is notoriously imperfect in any HOW MUCH CIVILIZATION CAN WE STAND? 865 sort of an army, whether industrial or militant. The motivation of the workers must consist largely of fear. That is, in order to induce him to do work which he would rather not do, he must be commanded, and there must always be penalty for dis- obedience. On the whole, it seems rather more irksome to have to do disagreeable work under command, with the fear of a penalty for disobedience as a spur, than to do it under voluntary agreement, with the hope of a reward as a spur. When we consider that it is, as yet, physically impossible to support large numbers without a certain amount of disagree- able work, and that there are only two things that will induce men to do disagreeable work, the hope of reward on the one hand, and the fear of punishment on the other, we get a fairly clear idea as to the penalties of civilization. One penalty or the other must be accepted; we can only choose between them if we are to remain civilized. To choose neither is to fail to sup- port large numbers, through failure to produce sufficient quan- tities of subsistence. How much will the hope of reward stimulate us to produce if we are a free people, or how much authority and compulsion will we stand if we are not free? Upon the answer to these questions hangs the answer to the question, How many people can we support? or How much civilization can we stand? Dependability an Important Characteristic of Civilized Man One of the most important characteristics of civilized man is his dependability. Without this we could achieve none of the advantages of specialization, of the division of labor or so- cial organization. Specialization and interdependence obviously go together. Many writers have taken pains to point out how dependent we are upon one another in a highly civilized state. One way of illustrating this mutual dependence is to compare a highly de- veloped society with a complicated machine or a highly de- veloped animal organism. There are many striking resem- blances, among the most important of which is the interde- pendence of parts. It is a commonplace that the interdependence of parts in- creases as we ascend in the scale of organic life. The same change is noticeable as we ascend in the scale of social life. Each individual tends to specialize in some particular kind of work and to depend upon other individuals who have specialized in other kinds of work to supply him with goods and services which he cannot produce or perform for himself. Every elementary 866 IMPROVEMENT ERA treatise on economics sets forth the reasons why this is so ad- vantageous under the heading of the Division of Labor. It is rather obvious, is it not? that there can be no great amount of dependence of one upon another where the people are not dependable. This is equally true of a machine or an animal organism, but we do not attribute moral qualities to the parts of any of them. The wheel in a machine has! no choice. It must of physical necessity do whatever its construction re- quires it to do. Although there is no physical necessity com- pelling a person to be dependable, as is the case with the parts of a well-made machine or the organs of a healthy body, yet it is just as important that he should be absolutely dependable; otherwise civilization cannot advance at all. If it is once understood that dependability is equally es- sential in the parts of a well-made machine, a highly developed organism, and a highly civilized society, we can then consider, advantageously, the factors which create dependability in each of the three cases. In the case of a well-made machine, the very frame-work is so constructed, and the mechanical pressure so applied, as to compel each working part to work with precision and accuracy. In the case of an animal organism, in addition to the purely mechanical parts which operate very much as the parts of a machine, there are other sentient parts that respond to stim- ulation or irritation; but the stimulation or irritation comes by contact. When for any reason one of these organs ceases to respond to its customary stimulation it ceases to be dependable, and the whole organism suffers. In the case of the parts of a complex society, dependability is secured less and less, as civ- ilization advances, by mechanical or biological methods. That is to say, men are seldom compelled to be dependable, or to function dependably, by mechanical force. Nor are they stimu- lated by physical contact as are the parts of the animal body. They are stimulated rather by anticipation. Pressure, stimula- tion, anticipation are the progressive stages of motivation upon which we must rely for dependable behavior in machines, or- ganisms and societies. There are certain resemblances, of course, between the response of a crowd to the appeal of the orator, the musician or the salesman and that of the muscles to the chemical stimulants generated by excitement, yet there are also certain obvious differences. However, it is not my purpose to dwell upon these resem- blances and differences. It is sufficient for our purpose to note that when the individuals who constitute the working parts of a complex society cease to respond in their customary ways to HOW MUCH CIVILIZATION CAN WE STAND? 867 their customary stimuli, they cease to be dependable, and so- ciety suffers as definitely as the body suffers when its organs cease to respond to their customary stimuli. A rough approximation to the real truth is suggested by certain old expressions, in spite of their inaccuracy and inade- quacy. I refer to such expressions as "tender conscience," "a sense of duty," a "feeling of moral responsibility." These, ac- curately enough, convey the idea of sensitiveness to stimulation, though they fail to express the idea that the conscience, the sense of duty, and the feeling of moral responsibility are easily modified or determined, though not necessarily created, by cus- tom and tradition. The influence of custom and tradition in determining the character of the response of the people to the stimuli of expe- rience introduces, doubtless, one important difference between the behavior of individuals in a society and that of cells in an organism. This difference, however, has been vastly overrated and has led to serious confusion of thought among certain so- cial psychologists, who profess to see no reason for assuming that one set of customs and traditions are any better than any other. A physiologist would scarcely say that one kind of a response on the part of any organ in the human body was just as good as any other. If for any reason an organ fails to re- spond, or responds in such a way as to injure or cause the death of the body, he would probably say that the organ was diseased. Anyone who would tell him that one kind of response was just as good as any other, would not appear either clever, original or scholarly. An economist is likely to recognize that one kind of behavior is better than another if it works better. Conse- quently, a custom or tradition that leads to such responses to stimuli, that is, to such behavior as will add to the life of the society, is better than a custom or tradition that leads to re- sponses, and behavior, that weaken or injure the society. He is no more likely to think it clever, original or scholarly to assert that one kind of response is as good as another, regard- less of the results on the life of the social organism, than the physiologist would be if such remarks were made regarding the behavior of the parts of an animal organism. Among the necessary forms of custom or tradition for those who are to live comfortably together in large numbers, are those which promote dependability, or cause us to respond in a calculable manner to the stimuli of experience. It is only thus that a civilization involving a great deal of mutual de- pendence can be maintained. Our mutual dependence is of various sorts and degrees. If 868 IMPROVEMENT ERA someone fails to do that which he is expected to do, he may imperil the lives of hundreds of his fellow men, as in the case of a switch tender or a locomotive engineer; he may occasion the loss of valuable property; or he may, as in the case of an unpunctual person, merely upset our calculations, and cause many of us to waste our time waiting for him or guessing what he is likely to do. In all these cases, in greater or less degree, the undependable person occasions loss to the nation. The time we waste on account of his lack of dependableness is as truly a loss as the property which is destroyed. Aside from the direct loss of time and property there is the greater loss which comes from the discouragement of enterprise, the lack of confidence, and the general demoralization which ensue when men can no longer rely upon one another. When we can no longer depend upon others to do their special work well and regularly we shall have to learn to do everything for our- selves. We thus lose the advantages of specialization. Common Honesty the First Element in Dependableness The first element in dependableness is, of course, common honesty. Men who will not keep their word, fulfil their con- tracts, or do business without cheating, are not only morally odious, they are also obstructions to the progress and prosperity of the community. Perhaps this is why they are morally odious. A community made up of such people, no matter how gifted they might be mentally, could scarcely prosper. No one could trust anyone else; consequently, there could be no credit. Nothing could be bought or sold without the closest and most minute inspection, and this would be laborious and therefore wasteful of time. There could be no cooperation or teamwork, but everone would have to look after himself and spend a great deal of time watching his dishonest neighbors. Among the many advantages of honesty, therefore, not the least is that it is a great labor-saving device when it is practiced throughout the community. Where the customs or traditions of the country are such as to make its people sensitive on the question of honesty, ashamed of dishonesty as of nakedness, you have at least one im- portant factor in dependability. Such a people can stand a good deal of civilization. Sobriety an Important Element in Dependableness Next to honesty, sobriety is probably the most important element in dependableness. In a rudimentary state of society, where each individual works and acts most of the time alone and where, therefore, there is little interdependence, drunken- HOW MUCH CIVILIZATION CAN WE STAND? 869 ness may not be so vicious as it has now become. In our inter- locking civilization no personal habit or vice, except lying, so unfits a man for usefulness as drunkenness. If you had to take your choice between riding behind a locomotive engineer who was addicted to drunkenness, and riding behind one who was addicted to any other vice, there is not much doubt as to which you would choose. If you had to take your choice between hav- ing chauffeurs on the street who were in the habit of getting drunk, and having those who had formed any other bad habit whatsoever, you would not be likely to prefer drunkards. Apply a similar test to anyone in any of the hundreds of responsible positions (and all positions are coming to be re- sponsible positions), and you will reach the conclusion that the person who is strongly addicted to drink is about the least dependable, and therefore the least desirable, citizen you can name. There are fewer places where he is of any use and more where he is a menace than is the case with the victims of almost any other vice. Whatever you may think when you are discussing, in the abstract, the relative harmfulness of various vices, you are not likely to be much in doubt when you come to a concrete case like that of a locomotive engineer, a switchman, a driver of an automobile, or even a janitor, or anyone else whose lack of dependableness might endanger your life. Sobriety must obviously rank high among the virtues which go to make up what we have called dependableness. Faithfulness and Other Virtues that Create Dependableness Time would fail us to more than mention courage, the father of many virtues, as fear is of many vices; fidelity, which is closely related both to honesty and to courage and serves much the same purpose; loyalty, which is the best kind of social current for the binding together of the parts of a com- plex social organization; and good sportsmanship which will take a beating rather than to break the rules of the game. There is a very large sense in which fidelity, loyalty and good sportsmanship are required of those who would live in a highly developed civilization, or in which fidelity may be said to limit the amount of civilization which any people can stand. I refer to the willingness of those upon whom we have come to depend to stick to their jobs, and not leave us in the lurch, to fulfil the trust which they have assumed, and not to desert their posts and expose us to danger. From our point of view the proposition that any man or group of men has the right at any time to stop work belongs to a lower order of civilization, in which the present degree of 870 IMPROVEMENT ERA interdependence had not developed. Without more fidelity than the proposition recognizes, we cannot live the complex life of the present. If, by way of illustration, any organ of the human body were to insist upon the right to stop functioning at any time, no such highly developed organism could contin- ue to exist. The processes even of biological growth can proceed no further than the dependability of the parts of an organism will permit. In extreme cases, the obligation to be faithful, not to quit or to stop work, has always been recognized. The sentinel who would desert his post, the switchman who would decide to stop working when a passenger train was due, the pilot who would quit before he had brought his ship through the channel, the physician who would quit before his patient had passed the crisis, would all be condemned for their faithlessness. Are these exceptional cases? Perhaps they were at one time, but as civ- ilization advances, we all come to depend upon one another in almost as vital a sense as we ever did upon the sentinel, the switchman, the pilot or the physician. If we do not develop a fidelity that is commensurate with the degree of interdependence, we simply cannot have a social system in which interdependence is a striking characteristic. Illustrations If, for example, we cannot depend upon those who are engaged in transportation; that is to say, if they are likely to leave us at any time without those necessities of life which we have been depending upon their bringing from distant sources, we must manage some way to make each section of the country independent and self sufficient, however wasteful and ineffi- cient it may be. If we cannot depend upon those who supply us with fuel from distant sources, each neighborhood must man- age to grow its own fuel, and remodel its stoves and furnaces accordingly. Proceed through the list of specialized occupations upon which we have come to depend, and apply the test of fidelity to each in its turn, and you will be convinced, not only that it requires a great deal more fidelity to be civilized than to be uncivilized, but that the degree to which we can be civilized depends very directly upon how faithful we are, or how high the virtue of fidelity ranks in our hierarchy of virtues. Who is Civilized? A most fundamental characteristic of civilized man is his willingness to stake his prosperity upon his ability to make HOW MUCH CIVILIZATION CAN WE STAND? 871 himself useful rather than his ability to make himself feared. The person who expects to get what he wants by making himself so useful that others will be glad to pay him well for his use- fulness, is civilized; the person who expects to get what he wants by making himself so dangerous that others will be afraid to refuse him what he demands, is not. In proportion as the method of usefulness prevails among a people, in that pro- portion is that people civilized. In proportion as the method of fear prevails, in that proportion is that people savage. Use- fulness is what men live on. Many can live under a system in which everyone is trying to be useful, and under which men prosper in proportion to their usefulness. Few can live under a system in which men are permitted to prosper by inspiring fear. This is a rather more satisfactory test of our capacity for civilization than any that can be applied to test our degree of self-interest or altruism. So far as can be told, civilized men are no less self-centered in their interests than savages. We are just as strongly inclined to prefer the satisfaction of our own wants and the wants of our immediate family and friends as any savages ever were. The only real difference is in the methods by which we seek the means of satisfaction. We are, if we are civilized, a little less inclined to seek the means of satisfaction by the methods of violence and fear, or a little more inclined to stake our prosperity upon our ability to make our- selves useful. In other words, we try to prosper by the mutual exchange of utilities and services, under the conditions of vol- untary agreement among free citizens. Four Methods of Struggling for Advantage — Illustrations There are, fundamentally, only four methods of struggling for an advantage in this world. These are the methods of destruction, deception, persuasion, and production. The first two, namely, destruction and deception, are the methods of brutes and savages. The last two, namely, persuasion and pro- duction are the methods of civilized men. By destructive methods are meant all those whereby one succeeds by virtue of one's power to kill, to hurt, or to inspire fear of physical injury or pain. "War," "robbery," "duelling," "sabotage," and "brawling" are names for methods of destruc- tion as carried on by human beings. By the deceptive methods are meant all such methods as thieving, swindling, adulteration of goods, false advertising, and demagogy. By the persuasive methods are meant all those methods whereby one succeeds by virtue of one's power to persuade or to convince. One may beat 872 IMPROVEMENT ERA one's rival by being a more persuasive talker, whether one is striving for favors from the sovereign person or from the sov- ereign people, whether one is striving for the hand of a lady, the decision of a jury, or the trade of a possible customer. By the productive methods are meant all those methods whereby one may beat one's rivals or gain advantages by virtue of one's power to produce, to serve, or to confer benefit. The same persons may resort to more than one of these methods in order to gain an advantage. When two farmers com- pete in growing crops they are struggling for existence, or for economic advantages, by a productive method. When they quarrel over a line fence and take their quarrel before a court for settlement they are struggling by a persuasive method. When they secretly alter or remove landmarks in order to gain an advantage in their litigation, or when they bribe jurors, they are struggling by a deceptive method. When they fall to fight- ing either with fists or with weapons they are struggling by a destructive method. When they change their methods in the order just described, they are sinking lower and lower in the scale; that is, they are resorting to worse and worse methods of struggling for existence or advantage. When they rival one another in growing corn, there is more corn grown as the result of that rivalry. The country is better fed and more people can be supported, and everyone is better off, except possibly the one who is beaten, and even he may very likely be better off than he would have been if he had not competed at all. When two farmers quarrel over a line fence and take it into court, no one gains any benefit except the lawyers, and what the lawyers gain the farmers lose. No new land is created in the conflict. No new wealth is pro- duced. The community is no better fed, no more people are permitted to live, and the farmers have wasted their time. To change from persuasion to deception, or from deception to physi- cal force, is so clearly to sink to a lower level that it is un- necessary to pursue the topic farther. Among animals the destructive and deceptive methods are the characteristic forms of struggle. They kill, maim, injure, rob, and deceive one another with no moral or legal restraints. They may sometimes rise to the level of persuasion, as in the courting process, but never to the level of production; that its, no animal ever tries to beat its rival by producing a larger or better product or rendering a greater or better service. Persuasion and Production vs. Destruction and Deception Among human beings who have no moral sense, and who are unrestrained by law and justice, the destructive and de- HOW MUCH CIVILIZATION CAN WE STAND? 873 oeptive methods of struggle will be followed as well as the persuasive and productive methods, but the destructive and deceptive methods are precisely the things that morals and laws are designed to prevent. In any civilization worthy of the name, and under any government worthy to stand over night, men are actually restrained by their own moral feelings, by the respect for the good opinions of their fellows, and by the fear of legal penalties from attempting to promote their own interests by destruction or deception. To say that men are restrained from doing these things is not the same as to say that they are absolutely prevented. Crime is the name we give, in civilized countries, to destructive and deceptive methods of struggling, and it still flourishes, though all civilized governments are trying to stop it. We are trying to raise the struggle for existence to a higher plane than that on which it is waged in the subhuman world. The aim is to pre- vent destruction and deception and to compel men to succeed, if they succeed at all, by persuasion or production. There are, however, some more or less refined methods of deception which have not even been declared illegal by legislation. If we can so improve our legislation as to prohibit every form of decep- tion as well as destruction, and if we can so improve our execu- tive and judicial systems as to prevent absolutely the violation of law, we shall have reached the ideal of government control over the struggle for existence. There are a few people who object on principle to all forms of competition, who believe that the whole competitive system is morally wrong. This feeling, however, is probably due to a failure to discriminate, as we have tried to do in the preceding pages, between different kinds of conflict. The horrors of war and other forms of destructive conflict, the petty, skulking mean- ness which accompanies all forms of deceptive conflict, and even the jealousies and heartburnings which result from many forms of persuasive conflict have so impressed certain sensitive spirits as to cause them to revolt against the very idea of com- petition in any form. Such people ought never to play croquet, because there is competition even there. An election, moreover, is as truly competitive as any form of business. Most of our Gaines and Struggles Competitive During the entire life of man on this planet he has had to struggle in one way or another against a multitude of ene- mies, human and non-human. The reason why we are here today is because our ancestors were successful in their struggles. They succeeded in living and reproducing their kind in spite of all 874 IMPROVEMENT ERA the enemies and dangers which surrounded them. One reason why they struggled so successfully was that they were valiant enough to wage their fight with vigor and with spirit. That spirit we have inherited to such an extent that we cannot even amuse ourselves without some kind of competition or struggle. That is why most of our games are competitive. Competition is as the breath of life to our nostrils. It will be well for us if we can harness this spirit to productive work rather than al- low it to waste itself in destruction, deception, or even in some fruitless kinds of persuasion. The nation which succeeds best in harnessing this spirit to production is the nation which should normally grow rapidly in wealth, prosperity and power, and be able to support the largest numbers. Winning by Fear a Foe to Civilization Anyone who has followed the discussion thus far may have been led to wonder whether we may not have reached, if we have not already passed, our limits in each particular. Why should anyone do anything unpleasant? is a question which, in one form or another, is asked with increasing frequency. Every day our ears are filled with some new tale of the horrors of the humdrum, routine work which a civilized existence re- quires of most of us. The wild, free, unrestrained life of men who do not have to specialize, or to do anything except that which they like to do, is pictured in new colors every week. This, more than anything else, is creating discontent with the life of civilized men. Again, it is doubtful whether any people in the world is to- day showing that dependability of character upon which alone can be maintained that specialization and interdependence of parts which an efficient system of production requires. Finally, it is doubtful whether, at any time during the last thousand years, men and women were so willing to fall back upon the method of fear to accomplish their purposes as at the present time, or even as they were before the war broke out. Every- where we saw people, in all ranks of life, endeavoring to win by making others afraid to refuse their demands when they had failed by the methods of peaceful persuasion and useful- ness. Anyone who then thought, or who now thinks, that war was or is an anachronism, had simply failed to understand the moral attitude of the people around him. Self -Discipline a Test of a Person' s Ability to Stand Civilization This discussion of the question, How much civilization can we stand? is peculiarly pertinent to this occasion. We HOW MUCH CIVILIZATION CAN WE STAND? 875 are gathered together under the auspices of a great institution of popular education. The peculiar function of every educa- tional institution is to train men for the functions of civilized life. Ajs the result of the training secured in such an institution as this, men and women ought to be able to stand more civiliza- tion than most of us are now able to endure. One expression that adequately summarizes the ability to stand civilization is self-discipline. The self-disciplined individual is one who is able to adapt his behavior to the necessary conditions of civilized life. The individual who lacks self-discipline is unable thus to direct his behavior. He is either the football of circumstances, the weather- cock registering every shift in the winds of popular feeling, or he pursues the whimsical variations of his own will, regardless of the necessities of a wholesome and successful life under cir- cumstances in which he is compelled to live. Such an individual cannot stand much civilization. He cannot fit himself into a great and complicated social machine requiring specialized conduct and specialized training. He is a failure because of his inability to contribute anything to the joint labor of the whole. He cannot play the game. He does not understand teamwork, or, if he understands it, he cannot play the game as it has to be played under teamwork. A nation made up of undisciplined individuals may disturb the peace of the world for a time, but it can never, by any pos- sibility, lead the world. The world has always been ruled by disciplined races. The disciplined races have ruled the world with the regularity and certainty of a law of nature. There is no more likelihood that any undisciplined race or nationality will ever again dominate the world than that the Mississippi river should flow up hill. Why Universities Should be Centers of Self -Discipline In order that our universities may be genuine leaders in civilization they must be centers of self-discipline. The chief object of their work must be to give to men and women that power of concentration, the power of giving attention, the power of doing the thing that has to be done, instead of the thing that one feels like doing. One of the most noticeable characteristics of undisciplined people who lack the ability to stand much civilization is that simple inability to hold them- selves to the task that has to be done, and the tendency to fol- low a vacillating will or the whim of a moment. This is a peculiarly important subject at the present time, when the severe discipline imposed upon our people by the war has been lifted. Directors of athletics are familiar with 876 IMPROVEMENT ERA the tendency of men to break training as soon as the athletic season is over. The whole world is showing the same tendency. Every great war has been followed by a period of increased unrest, violence, crime and political corruption. Nearly every great war has also been followed by a veritable outburst of constructive patriotism and productive enterprise, accompanied by a genuine increase in all social virtues. Yet those statements are not contradictory. A war puts a great strain upon the moral natures of men, bringing out the best and the worst that is in them. Those who are strong enough to stand the strain grow stronger under it. Those who are not strong enough break under it. Thus, a war usually increases both virtue and vice by ac- centuating the real differences among men. In that respect, it is like any other severe test, phyiscal, mental or moral. An ice-cold shower bath, for example, benefits those who are strong enough to stand it; it injures those who are not. It is natural that war should tend to increase crime and violence. There are always opportunities for violence and temptations to use it in order to get what you want or to have your own way, even in the most peaceful and law-abiding com- munity. Even the most peacefully disposed person is some- times tempted to use force rather than patience and persuasion when some cherished interest is at stake. It has taken centuries to build up the habit of resisting that temptation and of relying upon persuasion and good will to gain our ends. The develop- ment of clean sport, for example, is very much like the develop- ment of peaceful habits in industry, in politics and in all other fields of action. In any game there are abundant opportunities for violence and temptations to use it. When the players yield to these temptations, there is dirty sport; when they resist them, there is clean sport. The same resistance is necessary for cleanness in politics, in industry and in everything else. The salvation of the country, and the very existence of civ- ilization itself, lies in the hope that the great majority of its people are made of the stuff that is strengthened by the terrific ordeal of war, whose loathing for violence and love of peace and order are increased, and who may be relied upon to hold the turbulent minority in check. If that hope is vain, if the men of peace are outnumbered, violence and disorder will prevail, and the men of peace will either be overwhelmed in thei general ruin or compelled to betake themselves to the mountains and the caves, while the world enters upon another of those periods which historians call dark ages. Even our universities have experienced the difficulties growing out of the tendency to break training. It has been hard HOW MUCH CIVILIZATION CAN WE STAND? 877 to maintain standards of scholarship, to hold the students to hard and persistent work. My purpose in choosing this subject for discussion at the inauguration of a new president of this university is to impress upon all the friends of the university, both faculty and students and those outside, the supreme importance of supporting its faculty and its president in every effort to raise the standard of scholarship and to improve the quality of the discipline in which the students are to be trained. Self-discipline sums up the characteristics of civilized man, and an institution of this kind exists primarily for the purpose of training that virtue into our young people. They have grown out of a period when self-discipline is impossible. The child is a desultory creature. "The boy's will is the wind's will." Be- fore he can take his place in this great team and play accord- ing to team work, he must go through a period of training, just as definitely as if he were a candidate for a position on an athletic team. And after all, and fundamentally, the princi- ples of team work are very much the same, whether the team consists of nine men or a hundred and ten millions of men, women and children. Team work is what counts, and team work requires behavior, self-discipline, suppressing the impulse and the instinct of the moment for the larger purposes of the team. Any student knows perfectly well about how much an athlete is worth who won't play according to the rules of the team; but it requires discipline to do so. A Plea for Hearty Cooperation I bespeak, therefore, for President Thomas and his faculty and the Regents and the students and all who are interested in building up that system of self-discipline on which sound scholar- ship and sound character depend, your hearty cooperation; for unless the universities stand for this principle of self-discipline, on which our civilization depends, we shall not be able to modify our conduct as a people in such ways as to enable us to live together in larger and larger numbers and build a higher and higher civilization. "Throw Back Your Shoulders, Pull in Your Chins,and Go to It!" And to you,young fellows, I preach to you this gospel of self-discipline, and I beg you, whether you go out from this place by twos, carrying neither purse nor scrip, or whether you go about your ordinary occupations in an ordinary way, I beg you to become centers and examples of self-discipline. Then you will have a part in the building of a greater civilization in this country. I beg you, therefore, throw back your shoulders, pull in your chins, and go to it!