SOCIAL ETHICS: Sociology and the Future of Society
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SOCIAL ETHICS: Sociology and the Future of Society Charlotte Perkins Gilman PRAEGER Social Ethics SOCIAL ETHICS Sociology and the Future of Society Charlotte Perkins Gilman Edited with an Introduction by Michael R. Hill and Mary Jo Deegan Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Gilman, Charlotte Perkins, 1860–1935. Social ethics : sociology and the future of society / by Charlotte Perkins Gilman ; edited, with an introduction by Michael R. Hill and Mary Jo Deegan. p. cm. Originally published in serial form in Gilman’s monthly journal, The forerunner, in 1914. Cf. Introd. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0–275–97886–9 (alk. paper) 1. Social ethics. 2. Sociology—Philosophy. I. Hill, Michael R. II. Deegan, Mary Jo, 1946– III. Title. HM665.G55 2004 303.3Ј72—dc21 2003053021 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available. Copyright ᭧ 2004 by Michael R. Hill and Mary Jo Deegan All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without the express written consent of the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2003053021 ISBN: 0–275–97886–9 First published in 2004 Praeger Publishers, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881 An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. www.praeger.com Printed in the United States of America The paper used in this book complies with the Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National Information Standards Organization (Z39.48–1984). 10987654321 This edition is dedicated to Patricia Madoo Lengermann and Jill Niebrugge-Brantley, Scholars, Feminists, and Co-Organizers of the Section on the History of Sociology in the American Sociological Association, and to the memory of George Elliott Howard (1849–1928), Nebraska sociologist and president of the American Sociological Society, in whose personal copies of The Forerunner we found the text of Social Ethics. CONTENTS Introduction: Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s Sociological Perspective on Ethics and Society ix Michael R. Hill and Mary Jo Deegan Social Ethics: Sociology and the Future of Society 1. The Nature of Ethics 1 2. Some Bases of Ethical Valuation 11 3. The Influence of Religion Upon Ethics 21 4. As to “The Origin of Evil” 33 5. Sin 45 6. Virtues and Principles 55 7. The Position of Women as Influencing Ethics 67 8. The Training of the Child 77 9. On Certain Interactions 87 10. Instances 99 11. Conduct and Progress 111 12. New Standards and New Hopes 121 viii CONTENTS Notes 131 Index 145 About the Author and Editors 167 INTRODUCTION: CHARLOTTE PERKINS GILMAN’S SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON ETHICS AND SOCIETY Michael R. Hill and Mary Jo Deegan Then, being nothing if not practical, they set their keen and active minds to discover the kind of conduct expected of them. This worked out in a most admirable system of ethics. —Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Herland Social Ethics: Sociology and the Future of Society provides a complex yet accessible statement of Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s mature socio- logical theory of ethical life. Her perspective is welded intellectually to sociology and evolutionary thought and concretely to the well-being of children throughout the world. We have failed, writes Gilman in Social Ethics, to teach even “a simple, child-convincing ethics based on social interactions, because we have not understood sociology” (emphasis added). For Gilman, a world in which children are not loved, well fed, properly clothed, thoughtfully educated, and humanely disciplined is a world ethically at odds with logic and itself. From this fundamental premise, all else follows. Thus: war, barbarism, waste, religious bigotry, conspicuous consumption, greed, environmental degradation, preventable diseases, and patriarchal oppression in all its manifestations—all these for Gilman are highly unethical and must not be allowed to stand if society is to be a good place for children. If, as readers of Social Ethics, we sense that we are being firmly lectured as well as cajoled by Gilman’s penetrating wit and obvious intellect—that is because we are. Gilman pulls no punches, she really intends us to change our ways, and to use x INTRODUCTION sociological insights to improve our future society. Social Ethics first appeared in 1914 in serial form in Gilman’s extraordinary pedagogical experiment in adult education, a self-published monthly sociological journal, issued from 1909 to 1916, written entirely by Gilman and called, aptly enough, The Forerunner. The publication of Social Ethics, now for the first time in book form, completes the republication of four of Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s major sociological works originally serialized in the final volumes of The Fore- runner during 1914, 1915, and 1916. Taken as a whole, Gilman’s Social Ethics, Herland, With Her in Ourland, and The Dress of Women provide an integrated and multi-disciplinary approach to the central sociological issues facing not only Gilman’s era, but also our increasingly hyper- modern era at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Each of these works—whether fiction or non-fiction, fundamental overview or special study, hypothetical thought experiment or searing real world critique— informs, interprets, and reinforces the others. Of the major works in this sociological quartet, Herland is undoubt- edly the best known and most widely read, and when first published in book form in 1979, with an introduction by Ann J. Lane, was trumpeted as a “lost feminist classic” (see, for a more carefully edited recent edition, Gilman 1999). Herland is a fictional fantasy in which three male ex- plorers discover a secluded and idyllic world inhabited and governed only by women, and this latter feature has understandably delighted suc- cessive waves of scholars and students in women’s studies and American literature courses. Yet Herland, despite its literary attributes, is funda- mentally a work of sociology. It is not a utopia, but rather a lucid and persuasive thought experiment of the highest order in which Gilman plays systematically with alternate institutional arrangements and inter- personal relationships emerging from women’s values and worldview. Herland is a step on the way to a future utopia where men and women create the ideal society. The ending of With Her in Ourland points to the possibility of such a utopia, but Gilman does not write the story of that utopia. When Herland is evaluated as a utopia, and this is a large literature (e.g., Kessler 1995; Knight 1997, 1999; Lane 1979), it is the scholar who depicts Herland as a utopia, not Gilman. Gilman wrote With Her in Ourland in order to add a necessary step toward the possible imaginary land where men and women are both full human beings and children are central to the social structure. For a thorough analysis of Herland in cultural terms, see Deegan (1997), and, more briefly, as a sociological thought experiment, see M.R. Hill (1996). Of the three men introduced into Herland, it is Vandyke Jennings, a INTRODUCTION xi sociologist, who—although flawed—is nonetheless the most sympathet- ically portrayed and is ultimately the most amenable to the unfolding sociological rationale of Gilman’s hypothetical Herland. Van narrates the story and, importantly, comprehends what the Herland women have ac- complished (Gilman 1999: 102–3): Their religion, you see, was maternal; and their ethics, based on the full perception of evolution, showed the principle of growth and the beauty of wise culture. They had no theory of the essential opposition of good and evil; life to them was growth; their pleasure was in growing, and their duty also. With this background, with their sublimated mother-love, expressed in terms of widest social activity, every phase of their work was modified by its effect on the national growth. The language itself they had deliberately clarified, simplified, made easy and beautiful, for the sake of the children. This seemed to us a wholly incredible thing: first, that any nation should have the foresight, the strength, and the persistence to plan and fulfill such a task; and second, that women should have had so much initiative. We have assumed, as a matter of course, that women had none; that only the man, with his natural energy and impatience of restriction, would ever invent anything. Here we found that the pressure of life upon the environment develops in the human mind its inventive reactions, regardless of sex; and further, that a fully awakened motherhood plans and works without limit, for the good of the child. And as to ethics, per se, Van reported (Gilman 1999: 114): They developed their central theory of a Loving Power, and assumed that its relation to them was motherly—that it desired their welfare and espe- cially their development. Their relation to it, similarly, was filial, a loving appreciation and a glad fulfillment of its high purposes. Then, being noth- ing if not practical, they set their keen and active minds to discover the kind of conduct expected of them. This worked out in a most admirable system of ethics. The principle of Love was universally recognized—and used. Patience, gentleness, courtesy, all that we call “good breeding,” was part of their code of conduct. But where they went far beyond us was in the special application of religious feeling to every field of life. They had no ritual, no little set of performances called “divine service,” save those religious pageants I have spoken of, and those were as much educational as religious, and as much social as either. But they had a clear established connection between everything they did—and God. Their cleanliness, their health, their exquisite order, the rich peaceful beauty of the whole land, xii INTRODUCTION the happiness of the children, and above all the constant progress they made—all this was their religion.