The Dominion SATURDAY, APRIL 6, 1940. CIVILIZATION “IN THE WASH”

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 164, 6 April 1940, Page 10

The Dominion SATURDAY, APRIL 6, 1940. CIVILIZATION “IN THE WASH”

Contemporary writings in books and periodicals on the issues raised by the war seem to have a fairly common agreement on the point that civilization the world over is passing through one of those epochal crises which mark the end of an age. To many, the war is simp y one of its major incidents, and should be considered in its relation to the whole picture. Where they differ is as to the pattern of the new order which is to be fashioned out of the prevailing general confusion. Periods of international disruption and social unsett ement are the heyday of the crank, the fanatic, the visionary, and the demagogue. The Great War and the Great Depression proved that. They are now with us again, and in even greater numbers than before. A world in mental ferment about the causative factors in the sicknesses of the body politic and acutely concerned about the remedies is no doubt much preferable to a world sunk in apathy and fatalism. At the same time, it must beware of those prescriptions of quackeiy which promise quick remedies; of false doctrines founded upon class resentments; and of idealisms which miss the fundamenta truth that human beings are not angels, or ever likely to be. It is therefore as well, while considering attentively and dispassionately the views of those who have ideas to present concerning the things we should do and the paths we should pursue in order to make this a better world, that we should hearken also to the voices of those experienced thinkers who base their convictions on the realities and hard facts of human existence. While we must all agree, that civilization has reached a dangerous crossing, the injunction: “Stop, look, and listen,” if carefully observed, will preserve us from disaster. It is one of these crossing signals that Dr.. W. R. Inge, late Dean of St. Paul’s, London, displays in an article in the February Fortnightly Review. After presenting a symposium of views from the writings of various past and contemporary authors of. different schools of thought, he submits his own. He agrees that civilization, metaphorically speaking, is in the wash. “But,” he asks, need we throw out the child with the bath-water?’’ The antagonism between classes, he adds, was a product of the industrial revolution in its earlier stages, and need not be a permanent evil of civilized society. British liberties are much older than the so-called industrial revolution, as old as--Shakespeare and Milton, and if civilization after the war can be delivered from the curse of militarism there is no reason why life should be unusually difficult for the next generation. Furthermore, if international rivalries which prevent the free interchange of commodities can be removed, and production stimulated, there need be no more serious poverty. But it ought to be possible to reach this greatly-to-be-desired state of existence without the sacrifice of principles and methods which are the true basis of a nation s soundness and prosperity.

The danger now (says Dr. Inge) is that it may no longer be worth while for an enterprising man of business to run risks and encounter endless worries, in the attempt to make money which will be promptly confiscated by the State. . . . The nation may also lose heavily if there is no longer a class of men who, having private means, are able to devote themselves to research in science or scholarship. There is no nation in which so much first-class intellectual work has been done by men who havo not been university professors.

All this is strong common sense. Broadly speaking, the choice after the war will be between ordered evolution on the basis of well-tested principles, and revolutionary programmes in which those principles will be completely lost sight of, and perhaps destroyed. A democratic community is peculiarly exposed, and in periods of economic tension, dangerously susceptible to the lure of revolutionary clap-trap. Whether and how it may be possible to improve our present system of governing ourselves in order that we may be rid of the evils and dangers to our liberties associated with it, is not easy to see. It has been said that “Liberalism is the most agreeable form of government, but the most fragile.” The reason is, of course, that human beings themselves are ethically and politically fragile. If, therefore, the new world order is to be worked out on democratic lines, its citizens obviously must become more acutely conscious of their responsibilities as individuals and as electors. As Dr. Inge points out, some check on the political technique of tickling the popular ear with competitive programmes is obviously desirable. “To give the power of the purse to a class which pays no taxes,” he concludes, “can only lead to a reckless policy of plunder and extravagance. . . . We have yet to experience the result of giving unchecked power to trade union officials and blatant demagogues.”