In the previous section I have dealt with the single individual’s duty in relation to the general community and to law and generally received institutions. But there is a new set of questions now to be considered. Let us take up the modifications1 that arise when it is not one isolated2 individual but a group of individuals who find themselves in disagreement with contemporary rule or usage and disposed to find a rightness in things not established or not conceded. They too live in the world as it is and not in the world as it ought to be, but their association opens up quite new possibilities of anticipating coming developments of living, and of protecting and guaranteeing one another from what for a single unprotected individual would be the inevitable3 consequences of a particular line of conduct, conduct which happened to be unorthodox or only, in the face of existing conditions, unwise.
For example, a friend of mine who had read a copy of the preceding section wrote as follows:—
“I can see no reason why even to-day a number of persons avowedly4 united in the same ‘Belief’ and recognizing each other as the self-constituted social vanguard should not form a recognized spiritual community centering round some kind of ‘religious’ edifice5 and ritual, and agree to register and consecrate6 the union of any couples of the members according to a contract which the whole community should have voted acceptable. The community would be the guardian7 of money deposited or paid in gradually as insurance for the children. And the fact of the whole business being regular, open and connected with a common intellectual and moral ritual and a common name, such for example as your name of ‘The Samurai,’ would secure the respect of outsiders, so that eventually these new marriage arrangements would modify the old ones. People would ask, ‘Were you married before the registrar8?’ and the answer would be, ‘No, we are Samurai and were united before the Elders.’ In Catholic countries those who use only the civil marriage are considered outcasts by the religiously minded, which shows that recognition by the State is not as potent9 as recognition by the community to which one belongs. The religious marriage is considered the only one binding10 by Catholics, and the civil ceremony is respected merely because the State has brute11 force behind it.”
There is in this passage one particularly valuable idea, the idea of an association of people to guarantee the welfare of their children in common. I will follow that a little, though it takes me away from my main line of thought. It seems to me that such an association might be found in many cases a practicable way of easing the conflict that so many men and women experience, between their individual public service and their duty to their own families. Many people of exceptional gifts, whose gifts are not necessarily remunerative12, are forced by these personal considerations to direct them more or less askew13, to divert them from their best application to some inferior but money-making use; and many more are given the disagreeable alternative of evading14 parentage or losing the freedom of mind needed for socially beneficial work. This is particularly the case with many scientific investigators15, many sociological and philosophical16 workers, many artists, teachers and the like. Even when such people are fairly prosperous personally they do not care to incur17 the obligation to keep prosperous at any cost to their work that a family in our competitive system involves. It gives great ease of mind to any sort of artistic18 or intellectual worker to feel free to become poor. I do not see why a group of such people should not attempt a merger19 of their family anxieties and family adventures, insure all its members, and while each retains a sufficient personal independence for freedom of word and movement, pool their family solicitudes20 and resources, organize a collective school and a common maintenance fund for all the children born of members of the association. I do not see why they should not in fact develop a permanent trust to maintain, educate and send out all their children into the world, a trust to which their childless friends and associates could contribute by gift and bequest21, and to which the irregular good fortune that is not uncommon22 in the careers of these exceptional types could be devoted23. I do not mean any sort of charity but an enlarged family basis.
Such an idea passes very readily into the form of a Eugenic24 association. It would be quite possible and very interesting for prosperous people interested in Eugenics to create a trust for the offspring of a selected band of beneficiaries, and with increasing resources to admit new members and so build up within the present social system a special strain of chosen people. So far people with eugenic ideas and people with conceptions of associated and consolidated25 families have been too various and too dispersed26 for such associations to be practicable, but as such views of life become more common, the chance of a number of sufficiently27 homogeneous and congenial people working out the method of such a grouping increases steadily28.
Moreover, I can imagine no reason to prevent any women who are in agreement with the moral standards of the “Woman who Did” (standards I will not discuss at this present point but defer29 for a later section) combining for mutual30 protection and social support and the welfare of such children as they may bear. Then certainly, to the extent that this succeeds, the objections that arise from the evil effects upon the children of social isolation31 disappear. This isolation would be at worst a group isolation, and there can be no doubt that my friend is right in pointing out that there is much more social toleration for an act committed under the sanction of a group than for an isolated act that may be merely impulsive32 misbehaviour masquerading as high principle.
It seems to me remarkable33 that, to the best of my knowledge, so obvious a form of combination has never yet been put in practice. It is remarkable but not inexplicable34. The first people to develop novel ideas, more particularly of this type, are usually people in isolated circumstances and temperamentally incapable35 of disciplined cooperation.
1 modifications | |
n.缓和( modification的名词复数 );限制;更改;改变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 isolated | |
adj.与世隔绝的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 inevitable | |
adj.不可避免的,必然发生的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 avowedly | |
adv.公然地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 edifice | |
n.宏伟的建筑物(如宫殿,教室) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 consecrate | |
v.使圣化,奉…为神圣;尊崇;奉献 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 guardian | |
n.监护人;守卫者,保护者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 registrar | |
n.记录员,登记员;(大学的)注册主任 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 potent | |
adj.强有力的,有权势的;有效力的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 binding | |
有约束力的,有效的,应遵守的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 brute | |
n.野兽,兽性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 remunerative | |
adj.有报酬的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 askew | |
adv.斜地;adj.歪斜的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 evading | |
逃避( evade的现在分词 ); 避开; 回避; 想不出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 investigators | |
n.调查者,审查者( investigator的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 philosophical | |
adj.哲学家的,哲学上的,达观的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 incur | |
vt.招致,蒙受,遭遇 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 artistic | |
adj.艺术(家)的,美术(家)的;善于艺术创作的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 merger | |
n.企业合并,并吞 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 solicitudes | |
n.关心,挂念,渴望( solicitude的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 bequest | |
n.遗赠;遗产,遗物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 uncommon | |
adj.罕见的,非凡的,不平常的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 devoted | |
adj.忠诚的,忠实的,热心的,献身于...的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 eugenic | |
adj.优生的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 consolidated | |
a.联合的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 dispersed | |
adj. 被驱散的, 被分散的, 散布的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 sufficiently | |
adv.足够地,充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 steadily | |
adv.稳定地;不变地;持续地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 defer | |
vt.推迟,拖延;vi.(to)遵从,听从,服从 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 mutual | |
adj.相互的,彼此的;共同的,共有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 isolation | |
n.隔离,孤立,分解,分离 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 impulsive | |
adj.冲动的,刺激的;有推动力的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 remarkable | |
adj.显著的,异常的,非凡的,值得注意的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 inexplicable | |
adj.无法解释的,难理解的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 incapable | |
adj.无能力的,不能做某事的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |