When William Graham Sumner wrote the essay The Forgotten Man he outlined a now
famous formula: A and B decide on what C is going to do for D. The underlying
concept is that A wants to solve a perceived problem which D is supposedly
suffering from. A recruits B who is of like mind. A and B then extract something
from C to give to D. The Forgotten Man being C. (1)
Sumner defined the formula as follows:
“The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or
humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C
shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a
sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and
his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on
society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten
Man”. (2)
How does Sumner define The Forgotten Man?
“….the Forgotten Man and any one who wants to truly
understand the matter in question must go and search for the Forgotten Man. He
will be found to be worthy, industrious, independent, and self-supporting. He
is not, technically, "poor" or "weak"; he minds his own
business, and makes no complaint. Consequently the philanthropists never think
of him, and trample on him”. (3)
One needs to further consider A and B. Beyond A and B
fancying themselves as philanthropic or humanitarians, they in practice act as
third party decision makers. The “is going to do” or “made to do”, in the
formula above, is the third party decision process.
What prompts A and B to think they have the presence, the
knowledge, and the moral high ground to make third party decisions for others?
Why must C, The Forgotten Man, need relied upon? If The Forgotten Man is self-sufficient,
industrious and requires no assistance, then has not The Forgotten Man done his
duty? If C, The Forgotten Man, owes some exogenous duty, would that duty not be
the decision of The Forgotten Man?
The next question regarding A and B is why do they merely
want to extract from C and give to D …rather than making D like C? One may want
to consider that D is not like C, in the main, as D may not be industrious.
That is, D likes being D. Moreover, A and B, being that A and B are in point of
fact functioning as third party decision makers, may well be made up of two categories:
“do-gooders” and those seeking power
derived as the third party decision makers. In either case of do-gooders or
power extractors, solving D’s perceived problem may well not be their aim. The
do-gooder can’t feel “good” nor can the power extractor gain power, without the
existence of D and the consequential “is going to do” or “made to do”, in the
formula above.
The following are several observations by Sumner that might
be enlightening regarding the above discussion:
…the characteristic of
all social doctors is, that they fix their minds on some man or group of men
whose case appeals to the sympathies and the imagination, and they plan
remedies addressed to the particular trouble…
They [social doctors] are
always under the dominion of the superstition of government, and, forgetting
that a government produces nothing at all, they leave out of sight the first
fact to be remembered in all social discussion—that the State cannot get a cent
for any man without taking it from some other man, and this latter must be a
man who has produced and saved it. This latter is the Forgotten Man.
Hence the real
sufferer by that kind of benevolence which consists in an expenditure of capital
to protect the good-for-nothing is the industrious laborer. The latter,
however, is never thought of in this connection. It is assumed that he is
provided for and out of the account.
For our present
purpose it is most important to notice that if we lift any man up we must have
a fulcrum, or point of reaction. In society that means that to lift one man up
we push another down. The schemes for improving the condition of the working
classes interfere in the competition of workmen with each other. The
beneficiaries are selected by favoritism, and are apt to be those who have
recommended themselves to the friends of humanity by language or conduct which
does not betoken independence and energy. Those who suffer a corresponding
depression by the interference are the independent and self-reliant, who once
more are forgotten or passed over; and the friends of humanity once more
appear, in their zeal to help somebody, to be trampling on those who are trying
to help themselves.
The friends of
humanity start out with certain benevolent feelings toward "the
poor," "the weak," "the laborers," and others of whom
they make pets. They generalize these classes, and render them impersonal, and
so constitute the classes into social pets. (4)
Notes:
(2) William Graham Sumner, What Social Classes Owe to Each
Other, 1883, chapter nine, On the Case of a Certain Man Who is Never Thought of,
pages 75 -78
(3) and (4) Ibid
No comments:
Post a Comment