Essays On Education And Kindred Subjects (Fiscle Part- 11) - Herbert Spencer (if you give a mouse a cookie read aloud txt) 📗

To Whom His Letter Comes With No "Esq." Appended To The

Address, And The   Lady Whose Evening Party He Enters With Gloveless

Hands, Are Vexed At What They Consider His Want Of    Respect, Or Want Of

Breeding; That Thus His Eccentricities Cannot Be Indulged Save At The

Expense Of    His Neighbours' Feelings; And That Hence His Nonconformity Is

In Plain Terms Selfishness.

 

 

 

He Answers That This Position, If Logically Developed, Would Deprive Men

Of All Liberty Whatever. Each Must Conform All His Acts To The   Public

Taste, And Not His Own. The   Public Taste On Every Point Having Been Once

Ascertained, Men's Habits Must Thenceforth Remain For Ever Fixed; Seeing

That No Man Can Adopt Other Habits Without Sinning Against The   Public

Taste, And Giving People Disagreeable Feelings. Consequently, Be It An

Era Of    Pig-Tails Or High-Heeled Shoes, Of    Starched Ruffs Or Trunk-Hose,

All Must Continue To Wear Pig-Tails, High-Heeled Shoes, Starched Ruffs,

Or Trunk-Hose To The   Crack Of    Doom.

 

 

 

If It Be Still Urged That He Is Not Justified In Breaking Through

Others' Forms That He May Establish His Own, And So Sacrificing The

Wishes Of    Many To The   Wishes Of    One, He Replies That All Religious And

Political Changes Might Be Negatived On Like Grounds. He Asks Whether

Luther's Sayings And Doings Were Not Extremely Offensive To The   Mass Of

His Contemporaries; Whether The   Resistance Of    Hampden Was Not Disgusting

To The   Time-Servers Around Him; Whether Every Reformer Has Not Shocked

Men's Prejudices, And Given Immense Displeasure By The   Opinions He

Uttered. The   Affirmative Answer He Follows Up By Demanding What Right

The Reformer Has, Then, To Utter These Opinions; Whether He Is Not

Sacrificing The   Feelings Of    Many To The   Feelings Of    One; And So Proves

That, To Be Consistent, His Antagonists Must Condemn Not Only All

Nonconformity In Actions, But All Nonconformity In Thoughts.

 

 

 

His Antagonists Rejoin That _His_ Position, Too, May Be Pushed To An

Absurdity. They Argue That If A Man May Offend By The   Disregard Of    Some

Forms, He May As Legitimately Do So By The   Disregard Of    All; And They

Inquire--Why Should He Not Go Out To Dinner In A Dirty Shirt, And With

An Unshorn Chin? Why Should He Not Spit On The   Drawing-Room Carpet, And

Stretch His Heels Up To The   Mantle-Shelf?

 

 

 

The Convention-Breaker Answers, That To Ask This, Implies A Confounding

Of Two Widely-Different Classes Of    Actions--The Actions That Are

_Essentially_ Displeasurable To Those Around, With The   Actions That Are

But _Incidentally_ Displeasurable To Them. He Whose Skin Is So Unclean

As To Offend The   Nostrils Of    His Neighbours, Or He Who Talks So Loudly

As To Disturb A Whole Room, May Be Justly Complained Of, And Rightly

Excluded By Society From Its Assemblies. But He Who Presents Himself In

A Surtout In Place Of    A Dress-Coat, Or In Brown Trousers Instead Of

Black, Gives Offence Not To Men's Senses, Or Their Innate Tastes, But

Merely To Their Prejudices, Their Bigotry Of    Convention. It Cannot Be

Said That His Costume Is Less Elegant Or Less Intrinsically Appropriate

Than The   One Prescribed; Seeing That A Few Hours Earlier In The   Day It

Is Admired. It Is The   Implied Rebellion, Therefore, That Annoys. How

Little The   Cause Of    Quarrel Has To Do With The   Dress Itself, Is Seen In

The Fact That A Century Ago Black Clothes Would Have Been Thought

Preposterous For Hours Of    Recreation, And That A Few Years Hence Some

Now Forbidden Style May Be Nearer The   Requirements Of    Fashion Than The

Present One. Thus The   Reformer Explains That It Is Not Against The

Natural Restraints, But Against The   Artificial Ones, That He Protests;

And That Manifestly The   Fire Of    Sneers And Angry Glances Which He Has To

Bear, Is Poured Upon Him Because He Will Not Bow Down To The   Idol Which

Society Has Set Up.

 

 

 

Should He Be Asked How We Are To Distinguish Between Conduct That Is

Part 2 Chapter 2 (On Manners And Fashion) Pg 91

_Absolutely_ Disagreeable To Others, And Conduct That Is _Relatively_

So, He Answers, That They Will Distinguish Themselves If Men Will Let

Them. Actions Intrinsically Repugnant Will Ever Be Frowned Upon, And

Must Ever Remain As Exceptional As Now. Actions Not Intrinsically

Repugnant Will Establish Themselves As Proper. No Relaxation Of    Customs

Will Introduce The   Practice Of    Going To A Party In Muddy Boots, And With

Unwashed Hands; For The   Dislike Of    Dirt Would Continue Were Fashion

Abolished To-Morrow. That Love Of    Approbation Which Now Makes People So

Solicitous To Be _En Règle_ Would Still Exist--Would Still Make Them

Careful Of    Their Personal Appearance--Would Still Induce Them To Seek

Admiration By Making Themselves Ornamental--Would Still Cause Them To

Respect The   Natural Laws Of    Good Behaviour, As They Now Do The

Artificial Ones. The   Change Would Simply Be From A Repulsive Monotony To

A Picturesque Variety. And If There Be Any Regulations Respecting Which

It Is Uncertain Whether They Are Based On Reality Or On Convention,

Experiment Will Soon Decide, If Due Scope Be Allowed.

 

 

 

When At Length The   Controversy Comes Round, As Controversies Often Do,

To The   Point Whence It Started, And The   "Party Of    Order" Repeat Their

Charge Against The   Rebel, That He Is Sacrificing The   Feelings Of    Others

To The   Gratification Of    His Own Wilfulness, He Replies Once For All That

They Cheat Themselves By Misstatements. He Accuses Them Of    Being So

Despotic, That, Not Content With Being Masters Over Their Own Ways And

Habits, They Would Be Masters Over His Also; And Grumble Because He

Will Not Let Them. He Merely Asks The   Same Freedom Which They Exercise;

They, However, Propose To Regulate His Course As Well As Their Own--To

Cut And Clip His Mode Of    Life Into Agreement With Their Approved

Pattern; And Then Charge Him With Wilfulness And Selfishness, Because He

Does Not Quietly Submit! He Warns Them That He Shall Resist,

Nevertheless; And That He Shall Do So, Not Only For The   Assertion Of    His

Own Independence, But For Their Good. He Tells Them That They Are

Slaves, And Know It Not; That They Are Shackled, And Kiss Their Chains;

That They Have Lived All Their Days In Prison, And Complain At The   Walls

Being Broken Down. He Says He Must Persevere, However, With A View To

His Own Release; And In Spite Of    Their Present Expostulations, He

Prophesies That When They Have Recovered From The   Fright Which The

Prospect Of    Freedom Produces, They Will Thank Him For Aiding In Their

Emancipation.

 

 

 

Unamiable As Seems This Find-Fault Mood, Offensive As Is This Defiant

Attitude, We Must Beware Of    Overlooking The   Truths Enunciated, In

Dislike Of    The   Advocacy. It Is An Unfortunate Hindrance To All

Innovation, That In Virtue Of    Their Very Function, The   Innovators Stand

In A Position Of    Antagonism; And The   Disagreeable Manners, And Sayings,

And Doings, Which This Antagonism Generates, Are Commonly Associated

With The   Doctrines Promulgated. Quite Forgetting That Whether The   Thing

Attacked Be Good Or Bad, The   Combative Spirit Is Necessarily Repulsive;

And Quite Forgetting That The   Toleration Of    Abuses Seems Amiable Merely

From Its Passivity; The   Mass Of    Men Contract A Bias Against Advanced

Views, And In Favour Of    Stationary Ones, From Intercourse With Their

Respective Adherents. "Conservatism," As Emerson Says, "Is Debonnair And

Social; Reform Is Individual And Imperious." And This Remains True,

However Vicious The   System Conserved, However Righteous The   Reform To Be

Effected. Nay, The   Indignation Of    The   Purists Is Usually Extreme In

Proportion As The   Evils To Be Got Rid Of    Are Great. The   More Urgent The

Required Change, The   More Intemperate Is The   Vehemence Of    Its Promoters.

Let No One, Then, Confound With The   Principles Of    This Social

Nonconformity The   Acerbity And The   Disagreeable Self-Assertion Of    Those

Who First Display It.

 

 

The Most Plausible Objection Raised Against Resistance To Conventions,

Is Grounded On Its Impolicy, Considered Even From The   Progressist's

Point Of    View. It Is Urged By Many Of    The   More Liberal And

Intelligent--Usually Those Who Have Themselves Shown Some Independence

Of Behaviour In Earlier Days--That To Rebel In These Small Matters Is To

Destroy Your Own Power Of    Helping On Reform In Greater Matters. "If You

Show Yourself Eccentric In Manners Or Dress, The   World," They Say, "Will

Not Listen To You. You Will Be Considered As Crotchety, And

Impracticable. The   Opinions You Express On Important Subjects, Which

Might Have Been Treated With Respect Had You Conformed On Minor Points,

Will Now Inevitably Be Put Down Among Your Singularities; And Thus, By

Dissenting In Trifles, You Disable Yourself From Spreading Dissent In

Essentials."

 

 

 

Only Noting, As We Pass, That This Is One Of    Those Anticipations Which

Bring About Their Own Fulfilment--That It Is Because Most Who Disapprove

These Conventions Do Not Show Their Disapproval, That The   Few Who Do

Show It Look Eccentric--And That Did All Act Out Their Convictions, No

Such Inference As The   Above Would Be Drawn, And No Such Evil Would

Result;--Noting This As We Pass, We Go On To Reply That These Social

Restraints, And Forms, And Requirements, Are Not Small Evils, But Among

The Greatest. Estimate Their Sum Total, And We Doubt Whether They Would

Not Exceed Most Others. Could We Add Up The   Trouble, The   Cost, The

Jealousies, Vexations, Misunderstandings, The   Loss Of    Time And The   Loss

Of Pleasure, Which These Conventions Entail--Could We Clearly Realise

The Extent To Which We Are All Daily Hampered By Them, Daily Enslaved By

Them; We Should Perhaps Come To The   Conclusion That The   Tyranny Of    Mrs.

Grundy Is Worse Than Any Other Tyranny We Suffer Under. Let Us Look At A

Few Of    Its Hurtful Results; Beginning With Those Of    Minor Importance.

 

 

 

It Produces Extravagance. The   Desire To Be _Comme Il Faut_, Which

Underlies All Conformities, Whether Of    Manners, Dress, Or Styles Of

Entertainment, Is The   Desire Which Makes Many A Spendthrift And Many A

Bankrupt. To "Keep Up Appearances," To Have A House In An Approved

Quarter Furnished In The   Latest Taste, To Give Expensive Dinners And

Crowded _Soirées_, Is An Ambition Forming The   Natural Outcome Of    The

Conformist Spirit. It Is Needless To Enlarge On These Follies: They Have

Been Satirised By Hosts Of    Writers, And In Every Drawing-Room. All That

Here Concerns Us, Is To Point Out That The   Respect For Social

Observances, Which Men Think So Praiseworthy, Has The   Same Root With

This Effort To Be Fashionable In Mode Of    Living; And That, Other Things

Equal, The   Last Cannot Be Diminished Without The   First Being Diminished

Also. If, Now, We Consider All That This Extravagance Entails--If We

Count Up The   Robbed Tradesmen, The   Stinted Governesses, The

Ill-Educated Children, The   Fleeced Relatives, Who Have To Suffer From

It--If We Mark The   Anxiety And The   Many Moral Delinquencies Which Its

Perpetrators Involve Themselves In; We Shall See That This Regard For

Conventions Is Not Quite So Innocent As It Looks.

 

Part 2 Chapter 2 (On Manners And Fashion) Pg 92

Again, It Decreases The   Amount Of    Social Intercourse. Passing Over The

Reckless, And Those Who Make A Great Display On Speculation With The

Occasional Result Of    Getting On In The   World To The   Exclusion Of    Much

Better Men, We Come To The   Far Larger Class Who, Being Prudent And

Honest Enough Not To Exceed Their Means, And Yet Having A Strong Wish To

Be "Respectable," Are Obliged To Limit Their Entertainments To The

Smallest Possible Number; And That Each Of    These May Be Turned To The

Greatest Advantage In Meeting The   Claims Upon Their Hospitality, Are

Induced To Issue Their Invitations With Little Or No Regard To