Read…

LittleMango

TheSubjectiveNecessityofSocialSettlements-TeachingAmericanHistory.pdf

Home >English homework help >Read…

DOCUMENT:

The Subjective Necessity of Social Settlements Jane Addams | 1892

SHARE: ! " # " PRINT: #

Jane Addams > The Subjective Necessity of Social Settlements

Hull House, which was Chicago’s !rst Settlement, was established in September, 1889. It represented no

association, but was opened by two women, backed by many friends, in the belief that the mere foothold of

a house, easily accessible, ample in space, hospitable and tolerant in spirit, situated in the midst of the large

foreign colonies which so easily isolate themselves in American cities, would be in itself a serviceable thing

for Chicago. Hull House endeavors to make social intercourse express the growing sense of the economic

unity of society. It is an e"ort to add the social function to democracy. It was opened on the theory that the

dependence of classes on each other is reciprocal; and that as “the social relation is essentially a reciprocal

relation, it gave a form of expression that has peculiar value.”

This paper is an attempt to treat of the subjective necessity for Social Settlements, to analyze the motives

which underlie a movement based not only upon conviction, but genuine emotion. Hull House of Chicago is

used as an illustration, but so far as the analysis is faithful, it obtains wherever educated young people are

seeking an outlet for that sentiment of universal brotherhood which the best spirit of our times is forcing

from an emotion into a motive.

I have divided the motives which constitute the subjective pressure toward Social Settlements into three

great lines: the !rst contains the desire to make the entire social organism democratic, to extend

democracy beyond its political expression; the second is the impulse to share the race life, and to bring as

much as possible of social energy and the accumulation of civilization to those portions of the race which

have little; the third springs from a certain renaissance of Christianity, a movement toward its early

humanitarian aspects.

It is not di#cult to see that although America is pledged to the democratic ideal, the view of democracy has

been partial, and that its best achievement thus far has been pushed along the line of the franchise.

Democracy has made little attempt to assert itself in social a"airs. We have refused to move beyond the

position of its eighteenth-century leaders, who believed that political equality alone would secure all good

to all men. We conscientiously followed the gift of the ballot hard upon the gift of freedom to the negro, but

we are quite unmoved by the fact that he lives among us in a practical social ostracism. We hasten to give

the franchise to the immigrant from a sense of justice, from a tradition that he ought to have it, while we

dub him with epithets deriding his past life or present occupation, and feel no duty to invite him to our

houses. We forced to acknowledge that it is only in our local and national politics that we try very hard for

the ideal so dear to those who were enthusiasts when the century was young. We have almost given it up as

our ideal in social intercourse. There are city wards in which many of the votes are sold for drinks and

dollars; still there is a remote pretence, at least a !ction current, that a man’s vote is his own. The judgment

of the voter is consulted and an opportunity for remedy given. There is not even a theory in the social order,

not a shadow answering to the polls in politics. The time may come when the politician who sells one by

one to the highest bidder all the o#ces in his grasp, will not be considered more base in his code of morals,

more hardened in his practice, than the woman who constantly invites to her receptions those alone who

bring her an equal social return, who shares her beautiful surroundings only with those who minister to a

liking she has for successful social events. In doing this is she not just as unmindful of the common weal, as

unscrupulous in her use of power, as is any city “boss” who consults only the interests of the “ring”?

In politics “bossism” arouses a scandal. It goes on in society constantly and is only beginning to be

challenged. Our consciences are becoming tender in regard to the lack of democracy in social a"airs. We

are perhaps entering upon the second phase of democracy, as the French philosophers entered upon the

!rst, somewhat bewildered by its logical conclusions. The social organism has broken down through large

districts of our great cities. Many of the people living there are very poor, the majority of them without

leisure or energy for anything but the gain of subsistence. They move often from one wretched lodging to

another. They live for the moment side by side, many of them without knowledge of each other, without

fellowship, without local tradition or public spirit, without social organization of any kind. Practically nothing

is done to remedy this. The people who might do it, who have the social tact and training, the large houses,

and the traditions and custom of hospitality, live in other parts of the city. The clubhouses, libraries,

galleries, and semi-public conveniences for social life are also blocks away. We !nd working-men organized

into armies of producers because men of executive ability and business sagacity have found it to their

interests thus to organize them. But these workingmen are not organized socially; although living in

crowded tenement-houses, they are living without a corresponding social contact. The chaos is as great as it

would be were they working in huge factories without foreman or superintendent. Their ideas and

resources are cramped. The desire for higher social pleasure is extinct. They have no share in the traditions

and social energy which make for progress. Too often their only place of meeting is a saloon, their only host

a bartender; a local demagogue forms their public opinion. Men of ability and re!nement, of social power

and university cultivation, stay away from them. Personally, I believe the men who lose most are those who

thus stay away. But the paradox is here: when cultivated people do stay away from a certain portion of the

population, when all social advantages are persistently withheld, it may be for years, the result itself is

pointed at as a reason, is used as an argument, for the continued withholding.

It is constantly said that because the masses have never bad social advantages they do not want them, that

they are heavy and dull, and that it will take political or philanthropic machinery to change them. This

divides a city into rich and poor; into the favored, who express their sense of the social obligation by gifts of

money, and into the unfavored, who express it by clamoring for a “share”-both of them actuated by a vague

sense of justice. This division of the city would be more justi!able, however, if the people who thus isolate

themselves on certain streets and use their social ability for each other gained enough thereby and added

su#cient to the sum total of social progress to justify the withholding of the pleasures and results of that

progress from so many people who ought to have them. But they cannot accomplish this. “The social spirit

discharges itself in many forms, and no one form is adequate to its total expression.” We are all

uncomfortable in regard to the sincerity of our best phrases, because we hesitate to translate our

philosophy into the deed.

It is inevitable that those who feel most keenly this insincerity and partial living should be our young people,

our so-called educated young people who accomplish little toward the solution of this social problem, and

who bear the brunt of being cultivated into unnourished, oversensitive lives. They have been shut o" from

the common labor by which they live and which is a great source of moral and physical health. They feel a

fatal want of harmony between their theory and their lives, a lack of co-ordination between thought and

action. I think it is hard for us to realize how seriously many of them are taking to the notion of human

brotherhood, how eagerly they long to give tangible expression to the democratic ideal. These young men

and women, longing to socialize their democracy, are animated by certain hopes.

These hopes may be loosely formulated thus: that if in a democratic country nothing can he permanently

achieved save through the masses of the people, it will be impossible to establish a higher political life than

the people themselves crave; that it is di#cult to see how the notion of a higher civic life can be fostered

save through common intercourse; that the blessings which we associate with a life of re!nement and

cultivation can be made universal and must be made universal if they are to be permanent; that the good

we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain, is $oating in mid-air, until it is secured for all of us and

incorporated into our common life.

These hopes are responsible for results in various directions, pre-eminently in the extension of educational

advantages. We !nd that all educational matters are more democratic in their political than in their social

aspects. The public schools in the poorest and most crowded wards of the city are inadequate to the

number of children, and many of the teachers are illprepared and overworked; but in each ward there is an

e"ort to secure public education. The schoolhouse itself stands as a pledge that the city recognizes and

endeavors to ful!l the duty of educating its children. But what becomes of these children when they are no

longer in public schools? Many of them never come under the in$uence of a professional teacher nor a

cultivated friend after they are twelve. Society at large does little for their intellectual development. The

dream of transcendentalists that each New England village would be a university, that every child taken

from the common school would be put into de!nite lines of study and mental development, bad its

unful!lled beginning in the village lyceum and lecture courses, and has its feeble representative now in the

multitude of clubs for study which are so sadly restricted to educators, to the leisure class, or only to the

advanced and progressive wage-workers.

The University Extension movement – certainly when it is closely identi!ed with Settlements – would not

con!ne learning to those who already want it, or to those who, by making an e"ort, can gain it, or to those

among whom professional educators are already at work, but would take it to the tailors of East London

and the dock-laborers of the Thames. It requires tact and training, love of learning, and the conviction of the

justice of its di"usion to give it to people whose intellectual faculties are untrained and disused. But men in

England are found who do it successfully, and it is believed there are men and women in America who can

do it. I also believe that the best work in University Extension can be done in Settlements, where the

teaching will be further socialized, where the teacher will grapple his students, not only by formal lectures,

but by every hook possible to the fuller intellectual life which he represents. This teaching requires distinct

methods, for it is true of people who have been allowed to remain undeveloped and whose faculties are

inert and sterile, that they cannot take their learning heavily. It has to be di"used in a social atmosphere.

Information held in solution, a medium of fellowship and goodwill can be assimilated by the dullest.

If education is, as Froebel de!ned it, “deliverance,” deliverance of the forces of the body and mind, then the

untrained must !rst be delivered from all constraint and rigidity before their faculties can be used. Possibly

one of the most pitiful periods in the drama of the much-praised young American who attempts to rise in

life is the time when his educational requirements seem to have locked him up and made him rigid. He

fancies himself shut o" from his uneducated family and misunderstood by his friends. He is bowed down

by his mental accumulations and often gets no farther than to carry them through life as a great burden.

Not once has he had a glimpse of the delights of knowledge. Intellectual life requires for its expansion and

manifestation the in$uence and assimilation of the interests and a"ections of others. Mazzini, that greatest

of all democrats, who broke his heart over the condition of the South European peasantry, said: “Education

is not merely a necessity of true life by which the individual renews his vital force in the vital force of

humanity; it is a Holy Communion with generations dead and living, by which be fecundates all his faculties.

When he is withheld from this Communion for generations, as the Italian peasant has been, we point our

!nger at him and say, ’He is like a beast of the !eld; he must be controlled by force.’” Even to this it is

sometimes added that it is absurd to educate him, immoral to disturb his content. We stupidly use again

the e"ect as an argument for a continuance of the cause. It is needless to say that a Settlement is a protest

against a restricted view of education, and makes it possible for every educated man or woman with a

teaching faculty to !nd out those who are ready to be taught. The social and educational activities of a

Settlement are but di"ering manifestations of the attempt to socialize democracy, as is the existence of the

settlement itself.

I !nd it somewhat di#cult to formulate the second line of motives which I believe to constitute the trend of

the subjective pressure toward the Settlement. There is something primordial about these motives, but I am

perhaps over-bold in designating them as a great desire to share the race life. We all bear traces of the

starvation struggle which for so long made up the life of the race. Our very organism holds memories and

glimpses of that long life of our ancestors which still goes on among so many of our contemporaries.

Nothing so deadens the sympathies and shrivels the power of enjoyment as the persistent keeping away

from the great opportunities for helpfulness and a continual ignoring of the starvation struggle which

makes up the life of at least half the race. To shut one’s self away from that half of the race life is to shut

one’s self away from the most vital part of it; it is to live out but half the humanity which we have been born

heir to and to use but half our faculties. We have all had longings for a fuller life which should include the

use of these faculties. These longings are the physical complement of the “Intimations of Immortality” on

which no ode has yet been written. To portray these would be the work of a poet, and it is hazardous for

any but a poet to attempt it.

You may remember the forlorn feeling which occasionally seizes you when you arrive early in the morning a

stranger in a great city. The stream of laboring people goes past you as you gaze through the plate-glass

window of your hotel. You see hard-working men lifting great burdens; yon hear the driving and jostling of

huge carts. Your heart sinks with a sudden sense of futility. The door opens behind you and you turn to the

man who brings you in your breakfast with a quick sense of human fellowship. You !nd yourself praying

that you may never lose your hold on it at all. A more poetic prayer would be that the great mother breasts

of our common humanity, with its labor and su"ering and its homely comforts, may never be withheld from

you. You turn helplessly to the waiter. You feel that it would be almost grotesque to claim from him the

sympathy you crave. Civilization has placed you far apart, but you resent your position with a sudden sense

of snobbery. Literature is full of portrayals of these glimpses. They come to shipwrecked men on rafts; they

overcome the di"erences of an incongruous multitude when in the presence of a great danger or when

moved by a common enthusiasm. They are not, however, con!ned to such moments, and if we were in the

habit of telling them to each other, the recital would be as long as the tales of children are, when they sit

down on the green grass and con!de to each other how many times they have remembered that they lived

once before. If these tales are the stirring of inherited impressions, just so surely is the other the striving of

inherited powers.

“There is nothing after disease, indigence, and a sense of guilt so fatal to health and to life itself as the want

of a proper outlet for active faculties.” I have seen young girls su"er and grow sensibly lowered in vitality in

the !rst years after they leave school. In our attempt then to give a girl pleasure and freedom from care we

succeed, for the most part, in making her pitifully miserable. She !nds “life” so di"erent from what she

expected it to be. She is besotted with innocent little ambitions, and does not understand this apparent

waste of herself, this elaborate preparation, if no work is provided for her. There is a heritage of noble

obligation which young people accept and long to perpetuate. The desire for action, the wish to right wrong

and alleviate su"ering, haunts them daily. Society smiles at it indulgently instead of making it of value to

itself.

The wrong to them begins even farther back, when we restrain the !rst childish desires for “doing good”

and tell them that they must wait until they are older and better !tted. We intimate that social obligation

begins at a !xed date, forgetting that it begins with birth itself. We treat them as children who, with strong-

growing limbs, are allowed to use their legs but not their arms, or whose legs are daily carefully exercised

that after awhile their arms may be put to high use. We do this in spite of the protest of the best educators,

Locke and Pestalozzi. We are fortunate in the mean time if their unused members do not weaken and

disappear. They do sometimes. There are a few girls who, by the time they are “educated,” forget their old

childish desires to help the world and to play with poor little girls “who haven’t playthings.” Parents are

often inconsistent. They deliberately expose their daughters to knowledge of the distress in the world. They

send them to hear missionary addresses on famines in India and China; they accompany them to lectures

on the su"ering in Siberia; they agitate together over the forgotten region of East London. In addition to

this, from babyhood the altruistic tendencies of these daughters are persistently cultivated. They are taught

to be self forgetting and self-sacri!cing, to consider the good of be Whole before the good of the Ego. But

when all this information and culture show results, when the daughter comes back from college and begins

to recognize her social claim to the “submerged tenth,” and to evince a disposition to ful!ll it, the family

claim is strenuously asserted; she is told that she is unjusti!ed, ill-advised in her e"orts. If she persists the

family too often are injured and unhappy, unless the e"orts are called missionary, and the religious zeal of

the family carry them over their sense of abuse. When this zeal does not exist the result is perplexing. It is a

curious violation of what we would fain believe a fundamental law-that the !nal return of the Deed is upon

the bead of the Doer. The deed is that of exclusiveness and caution, but the return instead of falling upon

the bead of the exclusive and cautious, falls upon a young head full of generous and unsel!sh plans. The

girl loses something vital out of her life which she is entitled to. She is restricted and unhappy; her elders,

meanwhile, are unconscious of the situation, and we have all the elements of a tragedy.

We have in America a fast-growing number of cultivated young people who have no recognized outlet for

their active faculties. They bear constantly of the great social maladjustment, but no way is provided for

them to change it, and their uselessness bangs about them heavily. Huxley declares that the sense of

uselessness is the severest shock which the human system can sustain, and that, if persistently sustained, it

results in atrophy of function. These young people have had advantages of college, of European travel and

economic study, but they are sustaining this shock of inaction. They have pet phrases, and they tell you that

the things that make us all alike are stronger than the things that make us di"erent. They say that all men

are united by needs and sympathies far more permanent and radical than anything that temporarily divides

them and sets them in opposition to each other. If they a"ect art, they say that the decay in artistic

expression is due to the decay in ethics, that art when shut away from the human interests and from the

great mass of humanity is self-destructive. They tell their elders with all the bitterness of youth that if they

expect success from them in business, or politics, or in whatever lines their ambition for them has run, they

must let them consult all of humanity; that they must let them !nd out what the people want and bow they

want it. It is only the stronger young people, however, who formulate this. Many of them dissipate their

energies in so-called enjoyment. Others, not content with that, go on studying and go back to college for

their second degrees, not that they are especially fond of study, but because they want something de!nite

to do, and their powers have been trained in the direction of mental accumulation. Many are buried

beneath mere mental accumulation with lowered vitality and discontent. Walter Besant says they have had

the vision that Peter bad when he saw the great sheet let down from heaven, wherein was neither clean nor

unclean. He calls it the sense of humanity. It is not philanthropy nor benevolence. It is a thing fuller and

wider than either of these. This young life, so sincere in its emotion and good phrases and yet so

undirected, seems to me as pitiful as the other great mass of destitute lives. One is supplementary to the

other, and some method of communication can surely be devised. Mr. Barnett, who urged the !rst

Settlement, – Toynbee Hall, in East London, – recognized this need of outlet for the young men of Oxford

and Cambridge, and hoped that the Settlement would supply the communication. It is easy to see why the

Settlement movement originated in England, where the years of education are more constrained and

de!nite than they are here, where class distinctions are more rigid. The necessity of it was greater there,

but we are fast feeling the pressure of the need and meeting the necessity for Settlements in America. Our

young people feel nervously the need of putting theory into action, and respond quickly to the Settlement

form of activity.

The third division of motives which I believe make toward the Settlement is the result of a certain

renaissance going forward in Christianity. The impulse to share the lives of the poor, the desire to make

social service, irrespective of propaganda, express the spirit of Christ, is as old as Christianity itself. We have

no proof from the records themselves that the early Roman Christians, who strained their simple art to the

point of grotesqueness in their eagerness to record a “good news” on the walls of the catacombs,

considered this “good news” a religion. Jesus had no set of truths labelled “Religious.” On the contrary, his

doctrine was that all truth is one, that the appropriation of it is freedom. His teaching bad no dogma to

mark it o" from truth and action in general. He himself called it a revelations life. These early Roman

Christians received the Gospel message, a command to love all men, with a certain joyous simplicity. The

image of the Good Shepherd is blithe and gay beyond the gentlest shepherd of Greek mythology; the hart

no longer pants, but rushes to the water brooks. The Christians looked for the continuous revelation, but

believed what Jesus said, that this revelation to be held and made manifest must be put into terms of

action; that action is the only medium man has for receiving and appropriating truth. “If any man will do His

will, be shall know of the doctrine.”

That Christianity has to be revealed and embodied in the line of social progress is a corollary to the simple

proposition that man’s action is found in his social relationships in the way in which he connects with his

fellows, that his motives for action are the zeal and a"ection with which be regards his fellows. By this

simple process was created a deep enthusiasm for humanity, which regarded man as at once the organ and

object of revelation; and by this process came about that wonderful fellowship, that true democracy of the

early Church, that so captivates the imagination. The early Christians were pre-eminently nonresistant. They

believed in love as a cosmic force. There was no iconoclasm during the minor peace of the Church. They did

not yet denounce, nor tear down temples, nor preach the end of the world. They grew to a mighty number,

but it never occurred to them, either in their weakness or their strength, to regard other men for an instant

as their foes or as aliens. The spectacle of the Christians loving all men was the most astounding Rome bad

ever seen. They were eager to sacri!ce themselves for the weak, for children and the aged. They identi!ed

themselves with slaves and did not avoid the plague. They longed to share the common lot that they might

receive the constant revelation. It was a new treasure which the early Christians added to the sum of all

treasures, a joy hitherto unknown in the world the joy of !nding the Christ which lieth in each man,

but which no man can unfold save in fellowship. A happiness ranging from the heroic to the pastoral

enveloped them. They were to possess a revelation as long as life had new meaning to unfold, new action to

propose.

I believe that there is a distinct turning among many young men and women toward this simple acceptance

of Christ’s message. They resent the assumption that Christianity is a set of ideas which belong to the

religious consciousness, whatever that may be, that it is a thing to be proclaimed and instituted apart from

the social life of the community. They insist that it shall seek a simple and natural expression in the social

organism itself. The Settlement movement is only one manifestation of that wider humanitarian movement

which throughout Christendom, but pre-eminently in England, is endeavoring to embody itself, not in a sect,

but in society itself. Tolstoi has reminded us all very forcibly of Christ’s principle of non resistance. His

formulation has been startling and his expression has deviated from the general movement, but there is

little doubt that be has many adherents, men and women who are philosophically convinced of the futility

of opposition, we believe that evil can be overcome only with good and cannot be opposed. If love is the

creative force of the universe, the principle which binds men together, and by their interdependence on

each other makes them human, just so surely is anger and the spirit of opposition the destructive principle

of the universe, that which tears down, thrusts men apart, and makes them isolated and brutal.

I cannot, of course, speak for other Settlements, but it would, I think, be unfair to Hull House not to

emphasize the conviction with which the !rst residents went there, that it would be a foolish and an

unwarrantable expenditure of force to oppose or to antagonize any individual or set of people in the

neighborhood; that whatever of good the House had to o"er should be put into positive terms; that its

residents should live with opposition to no man, with recognition of the good in every man, even the

meanest, I believe that this turning, this renaissance of the early Christian humanitarianism, is going on in

America, in Chicago, if you please, without leaders who write or philosophize, without much speaking, but

with a bent to express in social service, in terms of action, the spirit of Christ. Certain it is that spiritual force

is found in the Settlement movement, and it is also true that this force must be evoked and must be called

into play before the success of any Settlement is assured. There must be the overmastering belief that all

that is noblest in life is common to men as men, in order to accentuate the likenesses and ignore the

di"erences which are found among the people whom the Settlement constantly brings into juxtaposition. It

may be true, as Frederic Harrison insists, that the very religious fervor of man can be turned into love for his

race and his desire for a future life into content to live in the echo of his deeds. How far the Positivists’

formula of the high ardor for humanity can carry the Settlement movement, Mrs. Humphry Ward’s house in

London may in course of time illustrate. Paul’s formula of seeking for the Christ which lieth in each man and

founding our likenesses on him seems a simpler formula to many of us.

If you have heard a thousand voices singing in the Hallelujah Chorus in Handel’s “Messiah,” you have found

that the leading voices could still be distinguished, but that the di"erences of training and cultivation

between them and the voices of the chorus were lost in the unity of purpose and the fact that they were all

human voices lifted by a high motive. This is a weak illustration of what a Settlement attempts to do. It aims,

in a measure, to lead whatever of social life its neighborhood may a"ord, to focus and give form to that life,

to bring to bear upon it the results of cultivation and training; but it receives in exchange for the music of

isolated voices the volume and strength of the chorus. It is quite impossible for me to say what proportion

or degree the subjective necessity, which led to the opening of Hull House, combined the three trends: !rst

the desire to interpret democracy in social terms; secondly, the impulse beating at the very source of our

lives urging us to aid in the race progress; and, thirdly, the Christian movement toward Humanitarianism. It

is di#cult to analyze a living thing; the analysis is at best imperfect. Many more motives may blend with the

three trends; possibly the desire for a new form of social success due to the nicety of imagination, which

refuses worldly pleasures unmixed with the joys of self sacri!ce; possibly a love of approbation, so vast that

is it not content with the treble clapping of delicate hands, but wishes also to bear the bass notes from

toughened palms, may mingle with these.

$ Go back to the main documents page.

SHARE: ! " # " PRINT: #