From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State - Sprida normer och företagsamhet

Vad man själv har för moral verkar vara en rätt så bra signalering till andra vad man kommer göra och inte göra. En bra moral är ett internt filter mot att göra vissa saker som (moralen anser) är negativa; den hindrar en allt som oftast från att göra de sakerna. Man kan därför se att när man uppmuntrar en viss moral, så hjälper man sig själv och andra att undvika ett oftast riskfyllt beteende. Det skulle kunna gå under kategorin jag diskuterade igår, utifrån det perspektivet. Men att uppmuntra något är lite annorlunda från att vilja inskränka något.

I vilket fall, de ömsesidigt hjälpsamma sällskapen verkade som en databas för att formulera och sprida normer. Men även praktiska råd, som i hur man sköter ett företag och lever ekonomiskt.

Americans were attracted to fraternal societies for a variety of reasons. Some wanted sick and death benefits. Others sought expander social ties. Still others hoped to find a source of entertainment and diversion. But there were motivations less easy to identify but perhaps more important. By joining a lodge, an initiale adopted, at least implicitly, a set of values. Societies dedicated themselves to the advancement of mutualism, self-reliance, business training, thrift, leadership skills, self-government, self-Control, and good moral character. These values reflected a fraternal consensus that cut across such seemingly intractable divisions as race, gender, and income. (s. 27)

Många av dessa värderingar verkar ha varit rätt så bra:

The value of thrift ranked high in the fraternal consensus. ... If self-reliance and thrift were fraternal watchwords, so too was individualism. The word did not entail Epicurean self-gratification or Emersonian contrariness; instead it was akin to a winnowing-out process for the improvement of character. ... A key tenet of individualism was the need to exercise mastery over the self. ... Self-control meant the power to resist such vices as gluttony, "over-drinking, over-smoking, lack of excerise, bad air, bad conversation, fool books."

But according to this pan-fraternal philosophy, such qualities were useless unless tempered with civility. ... The IOSL required that an initiate forswear "slandering a member of this Order or a family of a member." The ritual of the Order of the Rose, the youth group of the LOTM, taught the same basic lessons. The instructions stipulated that the queen of the court teach young members to avoid "envy and unkindness, selfishness and strife," which were "poisonous weeds that would destroy our lovely blossoms." ... Nonpartisanship was another component of the fraternal value consensus. ... All of the societies prohibited formal distinctions based on income and class. The UOTR boasted that it "makes capital and labor friends"; the ritual of the LOTM called on the initiate to know "no selfish ambitions, no class distinctions." s. 29-31

Men, som jag nämnt, så var de nationalistiska av sig, vilket dock inte visar att systemet är negativt, utan att en av de övergripande värderingarna var det.

While fraternal ritual writers disdained partisanship, they zealously promoted patriotism. The Security News phrased the matter bluntly: “The Lodge System is the foe of the outlaw and the anarchist, inculcating patriotism and love for country and that to live for one’s country is as essential as to die for it.” The ritual of the LOTM required the initiate to “behold that glorious banner, our Nation’s Flag” and featured a group rendition of “Flag of Our Nation.” Fraternalists contended that patriotism and good moral character were part of one package. The official historian of the UOTR, for instance, defined as “good citizens” those who strived “to obey the laws of the government, and to practice virtue, morality, industry, and economy.” (s. 31)

Men, om den sista meningen var representativ för alla deras värderingar verkar det ju som om de fick rätt på fyra av fem punkter. I vissa föreningar fanns det ett särskilt fokus på att lära ut ekonomiska och finansiella lärdomar, som hos den kvinnliga föreningen Ladies of the Maccabees, vars ledare hämtat inspiration från en av 1800-talets största klassiska liberaler.

The LOTM had few rivals, at least among native white societies, in the high priority it assigned to entrepreneurship. Though the organization did not own business or grant loans, it endeavored to teach managerial and financial skills. Fifield asserted that the lodge provided "business training which can be had in no other way" by showing "the ways of handling money, and ordinary business forms." It was also the teacher of more intangible skills. The work of the lodge , as the Ladies Review put it, necessitated the exercise of "patience, forbearance, perseverance, and practicability." Just as importantly, the LOTM hoped to advance entrepreneurship through participation in the "greatest business Association of women in the world." The LOTM's sucess gave the lie to the sterotype that women were inferior in finance and business. Citing statistics on membership and financial growth, an organizing manual concluded, "If you will compare the above figures with those of organizations that have men for their leaders, you will find that we stand second to none, in the matter of finance.”

The LOTM combined this promotion of female entrepreneurship with a confident faith in the liberating possibilites of the market. On more than one occasion Hollister favorably referred to the writings of Herbert Spencer, the most famous exponent of laissez-faire. In particular she cited Spencer's well-known dichotomy of "industrial" societies (characterized by contract and voluntary exchange) and "militant" societies (dominated by status and political coercion). Spencer had held that the rise of industrial societies served to elevate the status of women. Agreeing, Hollister paraphrased Spencer's assertion that "in the United States, where the degree of militancy had been so small, and the industrial type of social structure and action was predominant, women had reached a higher status than anywhere else, thus proving that where there is a degree of militancy, an increase in industrialism is generally concomitant of a rise in their position. (s. 36)

Det här får mig att tänka på hur illa det är ställt med dagens stat som ideologisk institution. Staten, som tar nära hälften av landets resurser varje år, har byggt upp en ofantlig struktur av tyckare som, mer eller mindre, sprider samma idéer för demokrati och staten. Det är en monolitisk tyckar-struktur, medan i ett fritt samhälle finns det inte någon enskild central som påverkar människor så mycket som staten gör.