TRICKS OF SPEECH

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 53, Issue 3843, 7 December 1936, Page 6

TRICKS OF SPEECH

RIDING OFF ON A PRONOUN. EFFECT ON PUBLIC LIFE. Mental attitudes can be revealed in tricks of speech. How often do we hear criticism and comment directed against some Vaguely indicated body or element comprehensively referred to as “they”? The experimental eavesdropper will be astonished at the frequency with which the term is used and the range it is required to cover. Wherever men meet and talk the undefined factor called “they” is certain to figure conspiciously in the conversation. “They” arei doing this or neglecting that; “they” are closing the local library or despoiling a park; “they” are making changes to be condemned or commended according to the point of view. Without realising it, those who habitually use the expression are actually excusing themselves from a responsibility which they have no right to disown. Who are “they” and what distinguishes them for us? The implication is that “they” consist of an element apart, somethingin the communal life wholly disconnected from ourselves. It seems a convenient getaway, especially to the chronic groucher, but the pronoun is not a steed that will travel far. Let us be candid and acknowledge that the habit of attributing things good and evil to “they” is either a token of sublmissjon, which is unheroic, or a disavowal of civic obligations, which is cowardly. The essence of successful democratic government in all its branches is a merging of the individual and corporate life. A right to complain carries with it a duty to combine. There is a strong tendency to exercise the right and ignore the duty. That is one of the reasons why there is so much talk, often disparaging talk, about “they” and so little about “us.’ “They” do not exisft outside a dictatorship except as part of the whole. It is because men and wojmen are too ready to shed their responsibilities that dictatorships get a footing. The, same mental laziness and personal pre-occupation have fertilised what in democratic countries is called the new despotism. If, as seems probable, the “dictatorship of the bureaucracy” reaches further into our lives, let it be recognised that the fault is our collective own. A community which is perpardd to regard a shadowy “they” as the remote rulers in all things deserves the inferior role for which it is destined.

The “hival trend” in modern communities has been observed and deplored by thinkers who set a propervalue on a vital democracy. For corrective we need something to jolt us out of the robotism, to which there is a danger of sinking. And first it is etesential to recognise in practice as well as in formal theory that democracy is a matter of co-operative living, not accord-to any set routine or imposed immutable order, but as the result of shared thinking and collective effort. The ideal is to participate!, not merely to observe, receive or obey. The position was summed up by a Melbourne writer recently when he said that Australia is now suffering from a shortage of participants. Not only for the higher platforms of National and State politics, but for all branches of voluntary public service, there is a pronounced scarcity of men imbued with the idea of life which best conforms with genuine democracy—“to make other people happy and the world a better place.” Twenty years ago Australia, in common with other countries then at war, lost a saddeningly large proportion of the, best of her young men. Had they lived, many of the fallen soldiers, now in middleage, would bel gladly and skilfullycarrying the burden of public service which as youths they bore so heroically. Their places have not been filled. The “lost generation” is our irreparable sacrifice and our present grievous disability. That, combined with a growing disinclination to share in the varied forms of public sorvice which are vitally important to an orderly, progressive communal life, is a graver question than many we aqgue about. Individualism expressed as a withdrawal from community effort, a refusal to help, is merely selfishness thinly disguised.

Are those who have achieved outstanding success in business, who have gained distinction in their professions—all who have won personal advancement a«d economic security—perpared to face the issue squarely and consider whether they are playing their part in a full and effective way? Ard they doing anything except for themselves and their own families? In the catalogue of citizenship there is one group and it is a lai-ge one, classified as “civic incompetents.” It is not confined to the inadequately educated; it need not, in fact, include them, for the desire to serve often is curbed by a want of ability. But it does include those who, having the ability and the opportunity to play some part in social service, elven though it be a minor one, are too indolent, too selfish or too much absorbed in their own affairs to contribute anything. The. invitation to participate in some way in promoting public welfare, in combating human misery and fvil, and in pushing the cart of progress,

is not a call for undiluted sacrifice. There are richer, deeper satisfactions still untasted by the most successful man in his own sphere who has not yet done “something for nothing” on behalf of his fellow men. There is a calamant call to those who are merely onlookers —to those who ascribe everything outside, their own immediate affairs to an impersonal force called “they”—to “come over and help.” All cannot be leaders, and all do not wish to be prominent public figures. But many more than are now in any of the arenas are needed to enrich their own lives in contributing from their time and energy to the! general good. If men are “too busy” or “cannot be bothered,” or| if they light upon any excuse that salves their consciences and seems to justify their self-exclusion from all branchels of public service, they cannot complain if democracy stumbles and a changed order insidiously develops. There cannot be cooperative living in the fullest sense if the obligation to co-operate is disowned. The spirit of public service shows some signs of wilting. It must bel revived, and it must flourish, if we are to keep what is precious in the community life and advance to a happier, juster society security based on democracy.