I have already had occasion to mention,
indeed I have quoted, a certain high-browed gentleman
living at Highbury, wearing a golden pince-nez
and writing for the most part in that beautiful room,
the library of the Reform Club. There he wrestles
with what he calls “social problems” in
a bloodless but at times, I think one must admit,
an extremely illuminating manner. He has a fixed
idea that something called a “collective intelligence”
is wanted in the world, which means in practice that
you and I and everyone have to think about things
frightfully hard and pool the results, and oblige ourselves
to be shamelessly and persistently clear and truthful
and support and respect (I suppose) a perfect horde
of professors and writers and artists and ill-groomed
difficult people, instead of using our brains in a
moderate, sensible manner to play golf and bridge (pretending
a sense of humour prevents our doing anything else
with them) and generally taking life in a nice, easy,
gentlemanly way, confound him! Well, this dome-headed
monster of intellect alleges that Mr. Polly was unhappy
entirely through that.
“A rapidly complicating society,”
he writes, “which as a whole declines to contemplate
its future or face the intricate problems of its organisation,
is in exactly the position of a man who takes no thought
of dietary or regimen, who abstains from baths and
exercise and gives his appetites free play. It
accumulates useless and aimless lives as a man accumulates
fat and morbid products in his blood, it declines
in its collective efficiency and vigour and secretes
discomfort and misery. Every phase of its evolution
is accompanied by a maximum of avoidable distress
and inconvenience and human waste….
“Nothing can better demonstrate
the collective dulness of our community, the crying
need for a strenuous intellectual renewal than the
consideration of that vast mass of useless, uncomfortable,
under-educated, under-trained and altogether pitiable
people we contemplate when we use that inaccurate
and misleading term, the Lower Middle Class.
A great proportion of the lower middle class should
properly be assigned to the unemployed and the unemployable.
They are only not that, because the possession of
some small hoard of money, savings during a period
of wage earning, an insurance policy or suchlike capital,
prevents a direct appeal to the rates. But they
are doing little or nothing for the community in return
for what they consume; they have no understanding
of any relation of service to the community, they
have never been trained nor their imaginations touched
to any social purpose. A great proportion of small
shopkeepers, for example, are people who have, through
the inefficiency that comes from inadequate training
and sheer aimlessness, or improvements in machinery
or the drift of trade, been thrown out of employment,
and who set up in needless shops as a method of eking
out the savings upon which they count. They contrive
to make sixty or seventy per cent, of their expenditure,
the rest is drawn from the shrinking capital.
Essentially their lives are failures, not the sharp
and tragic failure of the labourer who gets out of
work and starves, but a slow, chronic process of consecutive
small losses which may end if the individual is exceptionally
fortunate in an impoverished death bed before actual
bankruptcy or destitution supervenes. Their chances
of ascendant means are less in their shops than in
any lottery that was ever planned. The secular
development of transit and communications has made
the organisation of distributing businesses upon large
and economical lines, inevitable; except in the chaotic
confusions of newly opened countries, the day when
a man might earn an independent living by unskilled
or practically unskilled retailing has gone for ever.
Yet every year sees the melancholy procession towards
petty bankruptcy and imprisonment for debt go on,
and there is no statesmanship in us to avert it.
Every issue of every trade journal has its four or
five columns of abridged bankruptcy proceedings, nearly
every item in which means the final collapse of another
struggling family upon the resources of the community,
and continually a fresh supply of superfluous artisans
and shop assistants, coming out of employment with
savings or ‘help’ from relations, of widows
with a husband’s insurance money, of the ill-trained
sons of parsimonious fathers, replaces the fallen
in the ill-equipped, jerry-built shops that everywhere
abound….”
I quote these fragments from a gifted,
if unpleasant, contemporary for what they are worth.
I feel this has come in here as the broad aspect of
this History. I come back to Mr. Polly sitting
upon his gate and swearing in the east wind, and I
so returning have a sense of floating across unbridged
abysses between the General and the Particular.
There, on the one hand, is the man of understanding,
seeing clearly—I suppose he sees clearly—the
big process that dooms millions of lives to thwarting
and discomfort and unhappy circumstances, and giving
us no help, no hint, by which we may get that better
“collective will and intelligence” which
would dam the stream of human failure, and, on the
other hand, Mr. Polly sitting on his gate, untrained,
unwarned, confused, distressed, angry, seeing nothing
except that he is, as it were, nettled in greyness
and discomfort—with life dancing all about
him; Mr. Polly with a capacity for joy and beauty at
least as keen and subtle as yours or mine.