DOCUMENT 18–2: William Graham Sumner on Social Obligations

Reading the American Past: Printed Page 45

DOCUMENT 18–2

William Graham Sumner on Social Obligations

Many Americans wondered what to do about those who suffered more than they benefited from the phenomenal economic development of the Gilded Age. Should one give spare change to a beggar? Should one donate money to a home for unwed mothers? Should the government somehow help those who needed it? William Graham Sumner, a Yale professor whose ideas attracted a large national audience, answered these questions in his 1883 book, What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, excerpted here.

What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, 1883

There is no possible definition of “a poor man.” A pauper is a person who cannot earn his living; whose producing powers have fallen positively below his necessary consumption; who cannot, therefore, pay his way. A human society needs the active co-operation and productive energy of every person in it. A man who is present as a consumer, yet who does not contribute either by land, labor, or capital to the work of society, is a burden. On no sound political theory ought such a person to share in the political power of the State. He drops out of the ranks of workers and producers. Society must support him. It accepts the burden, but he must be cancelled from the ranks of the rulers likewise. So much for the pauper. About him no more need be said. But he is not the “poor man.” ...

Neither is there any possible definition of “the weak.” Some are weak in one way, and some in another; and those who are weak in one sense are strong in another. In general, however, it may be said that those whom humanitarians and philanthropists call the weak are the ones through whom the productive and conservative forces of society are wasted. They constantly neutralize and destroy the finest efforts of the wise and industrious, and are a dead-weight on the society in all its struggles to realize any better things. ...

Under the names of the poor and the weak, the negligent, shiftless, inefficient, silly, and imprudent are fastened upon the industrious and prudent as a responsibility and a duty. On the one side, the terms are extended to cover the idle, intemperate, and vicious, who, by the combination, gain credit which they do not deserve, and which they could not get if they stood alone. On the other hand, the terms are extended to include wage-receivers of the humblest rank, who are degraded by the combination. ...

The humanitarians, philanthropists, and reformers, looking at the facts of life as they present themselves, find enough which is sad and unpromising in the condition of many members of society. They see wealth and poverty side by side. They note great inequality of social position and social chances. They eagerly set about the attempt to account for what they see, and to devise schemes for remedying what they do not like. In their eagerness to recommend the less fortunate classes to pity and consideration they forget all about the rights of other classes; they gloss over all the faults of the classes in question, and they exaggerate their misfortunes and their virtues. They invent new theories of property, distorting rights and perpetrating injustice, as any one is sure to do who sets about the re-adjustment of social relations with the interests of one group distinctly before his mind, and the interests of all other groups thrown into the background. When I have read certain of these discussions I have thought that it must be quite disreputable to be respectable, quite dishonest to own property, quite unjust to go one's own way and earn one's own living, and that the only really admirable person was the good-for-nothing. The man who by his own effort raises himself above poverty appears, in these discussions, to be of no account. The man who has done nothing to raise himself above poverty finds that the social doctors flock about him, bringing the capital which they have collected from the other class, and promising him the aid of the State to give him what the other had to work for. In all these schemes and projects the organized intervention of society through the State is either planned or hoped for, and the State is thus made to become the protector and guardian of certain classes. The agents who are to direct the State action are, of course, the reformers and philanthropists. ... [O]n the theories of the social philosophers to whom I have referred, we should get a new maxim of judicious living: Poverty is the best policy. If you get wealth, you will have to support other people; if you do not get wealth, it will be the duty of other people to support you.

No doubt one chief reason for the unclear and contradictory theories of class relations lies in the fact that our society, largely controlled in all its organization by one set of doctrines, still contains survivals of old social theories which are totally inconsistent with the former. In the Middle Ages men were united by custom and prescription into associations, ranks, guilds, and communities of various kinds. These ties endured as long as life lasted. Consequently society was dependent, throughout all its details, on status, and the tie, or bond, was sentimental. In our modern state, and in the United States more than anywhere else, the social structure is based on contract, and status is of the least importance. Contract, however, is rational — even rationalistic. It is also realistic, cold, and matter-of-fact. A contract relation is based on a sufficient reason, not on custom or prescription. It is not permanent. It endures only so long as the reason for it endures. In a state based on contract sentiment is out of place in any public or common affairs. It is relegated to the sphere of private and personal relations. ...

A society based on contract is a society of free and independent men, who form ties without favor or obligation, and cooperate without cringing or intrigue. A society based on contract, therefore, gives the utmost room and chance for individual development, and for all the self-reliance and dignity of a free man. That a society of free men, co-operating under contract, is by far the strongest society which has ever yet existed; that no such society has ever yet developed the full measure of strength of which it is capable; and that the only social improvements which are now conceivable lie in the direction of more complete realization of a society of free men united by contract, are points which cannot be controverted. It follows, however, that one man, in a free state, cannot claim help from, and cannot be charged to give help to, another. ...

Every honest citizen of a free state owes it to himself, to the community, and especially to those who are at once weak and wronged, to go to their assistance and to help redress their wrongs. Whenever a law or social arrangement acts so as to injure any one, and that one the humblest, then there is a duty on those who are stronger, or who know better, to demand and fight for redress and correction. ...

We each owe it to the other to guarantee rights. Rights do not pertain to results, but only to chances. They pertain to the conditions of the struggle for existence, not to any of the results of it; to the pursuit of happiness, not to the possession of happiness. It cannot be said that each one has a right to have some property, because if one man had such a right some other man or men would be under a corresponding obligation to provide him with some property. Each has a right to acquire and possess property if he can. ... If we take rights to pertain to results, and then say that rights must be equal, we come to say that men have a right to be equally happy, and so on in all the details. Rights should be equal, because they pertain to chances, and all ought to have equal chances so far as chances are provided or limited by the action of society. This, however, will not produce equal results, but it is right just because it will produce unequal results — that is, results which shall be proportioned to the merits of individuals. We each owe it to the other to guarantee mutually the chance to earn, to possess, to learn, to marry, etc., etc., against any interference which would prevent the exercise of those rights by a person who wishes to prosecute and enjoy them in peace for the pursuit of happiness. If we generalize this, it means that All-of-us ought to guarantee rights to each of us. ...

The only help which is generally expedient, even within the limits of the private and personal relations of two persons to each other, is that which consists in helping a man to help himself. This always consists in opening the chances. ...

Now, the aid which helps a man to help himself is not in the least akin to the aid which is given in charity. If alms are given, or if we “make work” for a man, or “give him employment,” or “protect” him, we simply take a product from one and give it to another. If we help a man to help himself, by opening the chances around him, we put him in a position to add to the wealth of the community by putting new powers in operation to produce. ...

The men who have not done their duty in this world never can be equal to those who have done their duty more or less well. If words like wise and foolish, thrifty and extravagant, prudent and negligent, have any meaning in language, then it must make some difference how people behave in this world, and the difference will appear in the position they acquire in the body of society, and in relation to the chances of life. They may, then, be classified in reference to these facts. Such classes always will exist; no other social distinctions can endure. If, then, we look to the origin and definition of these classes, we shall find it impossible to deduce any obligations which one of them bears to the other. The class distinctions simply result from the different degrees of success with which men have availed themselves of the chances which were presented to them. Instead of endeavoring to redistribute the acquisitions which have been made between the existing classes, our aim should be to increase, multiply, and extend the chances. Such is the work of civilization. Every old error or abuse which is removed opens new chances of development to all the new energy of society. Every improvement in education, science, art, or government expands the chances of man on earth. Such expansion is no guarantee of equality. On the contrary, if there be liberty, some will profit by the chances eagerly and some will neglect them altogether. Therefore, the greater the chances, the more unequal will be the fortune of these two sets of men. So it ought to be, in all justice and right reason.

From William Graham Sumner, What Social Classes Owe to Each Other (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1883), 84–90.

Questions for Reading and Discussion

Question

ntoLVBCC7NSdcstxZERWInRb3dVVGxB2E7mB6v1ueqAvroBs0F3LOGVJX0RQ6diHFGzl9FqPrNr9Guw71EOO/A+ukjod+OoFeuLFKozQ/Q+Qjt32

Question

5Ky5Fr17c95Z4zTMLIu1HuU1PLmlDMqgG15QHqWW7A0GehRKKGmSRnQa8r+xXiFBwSMfhPmDWVt5KfrL3TVuCO2gSAWN80YgDCLtIAsLzUp4WS2f1NQFsmyf1Mnx+fLR719OAlRSg8Dw5PGCQPiPtND6L5gc33QscRbSIXhAcdcwH4/n9LuQRyGPs200/9bz4F/UhS3AltJt6464O/1tK5t/sMs=

Question

/HgLMIz6dMyAfpuok7lO9wjAaNCJHrE2NUehSpi5VdLopxbInDxaR9x4d56fejTMV/bbxgFvzwGu0QfEn4Ek2+1X4ZfZNdZQ0WKksM+01dBoHYL2UZZ/BH6wEgc9RNNqWyqGG3CHFPVdcmyOfOdCAMrFgtVZpWX8uQk1F0NmG0CXg4sJC0PIYX5r6GOkNNorzI/AW7XBD2SIBVTy8OlWnyzN8XZJ2odFg/Ycmr7t0EYxUKl4YX9gkOXINskjX7hzK2cddGltUo43pk2HvuSWPxaXO/MhGgkHf1uBK5LrSCyjkb5ofmeuOoQlGbWpOE1rnoZinFI6zQtOcl0HU78+6PIhObCLfcUOGDaxnPl6h+CaBr3lDZCPDV3fHT8=

Question

j2q7yMJDTlQoSw9ys0pZbvL3Pd4PhtReZ02cUEpWvKa/9rSpBti3q42kMlxr8iDrw7vj6ZC9HViGcDYwqrdwpircb2xYOd8ZwKUUbRXMyOQbJfII61sw41ySXhyNz/Baj8Nge3Hac3uu8m/IbfHs6Slinm7O02mFtZhMiWdUkC8RkoPkgnRNQt0sIGBbfQHtWzcxP+lofl3dQEj9iv7spaTZJXt308yc5zrk1MH0qZ/xRH3EK61+0tcT8k5bSAZxdWM/JmrwYlNVzcr419Wr3r509z7l7RRn3pXUCzR5wFc=