7 Dark Roses - Free Audio ebooks

THE HOMOGENIZED MAN

odd moments, when sunk in contemplation of some

cosmic navel, the vague suspicion that I am, at heart, an

anarchist flashes through my mind. Not that any impulse

to strew high explosives in palace gardens or parliamentary

antechambers stirs within me; I certainly bear no malice

whatsoever toward aged arch

dukes or young czarevitches.

My evanescent anarchistic tendencies are purely

classical. I use the word anarchist in the sense in which it

was understood by the ancient Greeks. They, of course,

accepted the anarchist as a fairly respectable—if somewhat

vehement—opponent of government encroachment on the

individual’s rights to think and act freely. It is in this sense

that I glimpse myself as an anarchist—regretting the

growth of government and the ever-increasing trend toward

regulation and, worst of all, standardization of human

activity.

I never dwell long on such thoughts, however, for no

man relishes seeing himself as an anachronism clinging

hopelessly to obsolete concepts. Being a realist, I am forced

to concede that in the

guerre d outrance

between

individual rights and government prerogatives, the latter

have clearly emerged the victors.

Big government has been with us for quite some time—

and it continues to grow bigger. The government

administrator and “planner” and the electronic brain are

inheriting what daily becomes more and more of a punch-

card world. Led by big government—which, after all, sets

the style—we are moving rapidly and inexorably into the

era of the completely structured society, the bureaucrat’s

beehive Utopia in which there will be just one great

assonant buzz.

I, personally, find the prospect dismal, but I appreciate

that what is a strait jacket for one man may well seem a

loose-flowing toga to the next

. Even such words as forward

and backward are relative terms; their meanings depend on

where one is standing before he starts to move. There are

unquestionably many to whom the planned and ordered—if

not very brave— new world of the future will appear as the

safest of all possible havens.

Nonetheless, it should be plain to all that the completely

structured society will impose increasingly severe

restrictions on its members and will drastically change

most—and quite possibly all—of our existing social and

economic patterns. But then, these changes will not really

be new—only final and complete. They have been taking

place more or less gradually for a long time; the trend

toward the structuring of society has been evident for

centuries.

In the ancient Greek city-states, premiums were set on

individuality in almost all things. But, with the emergence

of the concept of empire, th

e movement toward uniformity

was firmly established.

Within the Roman Empire, for example, such diverse

things as laws, the administrati

on of justice, fashions in

wearing apparel and business practices became highly

standardized. The civilization, customs, manners and

mores exported by Rome impressed themselves—and were

impressed upon—subjected and allied peoples, many

classes among whom eagerly accepted and aped them.

Temples, amphitheaters, dwelling places and other

structures built by the Roman legions in the Empire’s far

flung reaches were, save perhaps for size, virtually

identical to like structures built in Rome. The artistic style

and techniques apparent in a Second Century portrait bust

found in a Roman ruin in Syria are practically

indistinguishable from those to be seen in a Second

Century bust dug from the banks of the Tiber.

It is not unreasonable to assume that if the Roman

Empire had survived, the civilizations of Europe, the

Middle East and North Africa might well have developed

according to the prototypal patterns established by Rome.

The Empire, however, collapsed. The ordered whole was

shattered into myriad splintered fragments. Even Latin,

long the language of Western civilization, was split into

innumerable languages and dialects. With that, the trend

toward standardization was temporarily halted. Countless

highly individualistic tribal societies and minor

principalities replaced strongly organized imperial gov-

ernment. The chaotic patchwork remained until, at last,

the feudal system that had ev

olved during the Dark Ages

finally withered and died. Then

, with the re-emergence of

strong central governments, a marked trend toward

unification and standardization began again.

The movement has continued steadily throughout the

last four or five hundred years. In more recent generations,

burgeoning populations, multiplying social and economic

problems and such other factors as vastly improved

communications have strengthened the trend and caused it

to move at a progressively faster pace. Today, the tendency

toward standardization is evident almost everywhere on

the globe. Native costumes have been largely discarded in

many countries; the custom is to dress in Western-style

clothing. A woman’s dress fashion set in Paris one day is

reported by press, radio and television on every continent

within hours; within a week it has become the vogue

throughout much of the world. There isn’t much difference

between the appearance of, say, refrigerators built in

England and those manufactured in the United States,

France, Italy or Germany. Let an architectural style catch

on in one country, and you can be sure that it will become

the rage in a dozen other countries in short order.

Today, the inherent nature of government in an

increasingly complex civilization creates strong pressures

toward systemization and standardization, which, in turn,

serves to create vast bureaucratic complexes. In

government (as in overgrown big-business corporations

that have assumed government-style managerial practices)

the attempt to establish rigid procedures for the most

minute activities tends to guarantee imposition of a

structured conformity. Needless to say, all this proves espe-

cially appealing to the type of job seeker and job holder who

is bereft of courage and imagination and basks like some

somnolent embryo in the amniotic comfort of a completely

regulated life.

The bureaucratic mazes of government are self-

perpetuating, self-propagating and given to mitosis—and

they grow ever more intricate, unwieldy and ubiquitous. I

do not suggest that there is a malevolent force behind any

of this. It is simply the way things are, simply the way they

have developed and continue to develop.

Our own country’s history provides an illuminating

example of how nations move toward the creation of a

structured society. Originally 13 rather loosely federated

states dedicated to the proposition that all government

should be held to a minimum and individual liberty kept at

a maximum, the United States has changed greatly since

the Declaration of Independence was signed. Modern

America is a country with national, state and local

governments that are infinitely more powerful than was

ever envisioned by our founding fathers. Today, the hand of

government can be felt—regulating, prescribing,

proscribing and standardizing—in almost every area of

human activity.

True, our nation’s citizens are as free as any people on

the face of the earth, far more than most. But just

how

free are they? To what extent has government already

encroached on their freedoms and their rights to life, liberty

and the pursuit of happiness?

I think the average American would be astounded to

realize how many commonplace things he may

not

unless he maintains standards set by government and

obtains permission from government to do them in the first

place. I rather doubt that most

people have ever stopped to

think about it.

For example, the average American citizen cannot sell a

bottle of beer, get married, go hunting or fishing, drive an

automobile or even keep a dog for a pet without appropriate

licenses from government. In most places throughout the

United States, he cannot hold

a parade, build a house or

even add a bathroom to his home unless he first obtains

permits to do these things from government. He must not

operate so much as a pet shop

, a boardinghouse or a soda

fountain without licenses or permits from such government

departments as police, health, fire and so on, ad

bureaucratic infinitum.

From the moment he is born and his birth certificate is

filled out and recorded, the average American is a marked

human being. His life, habits and activities become the

concern of numberless bureaucratic offices and agencies

which register, enroll, scrutinize, supervise and regulate

him and whatever he may do until the day he dies, and

even after.

Our free American

must

be enrolled in school at a

certain age and must remain there for a prescribed period

studying at least some prescribed subjects. Male members

of the population must register with Selective Service

boards. They remain eligible for military service for many

years; if called, they must serve in the Armed Forces for a

specified time. Most Americans—regardless of sex—must

workmen’s compensation, income tax, census and other

Federal, state, county, or city government bureaus.

Now, I hasten to make clear that I consider these

requirements necessary and beneficial. Obviously there

must be laws and standards in our complex civilization.

Unrestricted hunting would quickly wipe out all game

animals; unlicensed drivers would greatly increase the

already appalling slaughter

on our jammed streets and

highways. An individual cannot be allowed to erect a

slovenly shack where others have built fine homes; nor

should he be allowed to operate a boardinghouse that is a

firetrap or a menace to the health of its tenants. The

nation’s security in a troubled world depends on its armed

forces, hence the need for Selective Service. Certainly no

sane person would want to abolish the census. Government,

law, control and regulation—and even concomitant

bureaucracy— are essential if a nation of 190,000,000

people is to exist and function, if there is not to be utter

chaos and eventual destruction.

I would like to repeat and make it very clear that I am no

antigovernment reactionary. I do not maintain that the

restrictions I have cited are undesirable. They are, in my

opinion, entirely necessary, in that their purpose is to make

life safer and more pleasant for all.

The issue is not that any of these manifestations are

good or bad. The point is simply that they

are,

that they

exist, are implemented and enforced, affecting all citizens.

They are mentioned only as demonstrations of the extent to

which we are already living in a regulated society.

Further proof may be found in the manifold ways in

which government at all levels controls the nation’s

business and economy. Like it or not, the so-called free-

enterprise system is not nearly as free as some might

imagine. The Federal Government alone has some 30

independent

regulatory agencies which wield great

power and influence over practically every aspect of U. S.

business.

Take, for example, the duties and responsibilities of just

three of these agencies. The Interstate Commerce

Commission fixes rates and grants franchises for railroads,

barge lines, trucking and pipeline firms. The Civil

Aeronautics Board sets airline routes, rates and safety

standards. The Federal Communications Commission

determines who may (or may not) operate radio or

television broadcasting stations. In addition to such

independent regulatory agencies, there are scores of other

Federal bureaus and offices that exert influence and

exercise varying degrees of direct and indirect control over

the country’s economy and business. Farm production is

regulated through price supports, acreage controls and

other methods—and the effects are felt not only by the

farmer but by the produce trucker, food wholesaler, corner

grocer and consumer as well. Government affects business

activity and expansion by raising or lowering Federal

Reserve discount rates, tariffs, taxes and by innumerable

other means. Whatever it does in these directions is soon

reflected in production and sales figures, employment

statistics and price indexes.

In short, big government wields numberless big sticks

over American business and th

e American economy. And,

when I speak of big government, I do not mean the Federal

Government alone. The various states—and even counties

and cities —license, tax, inspect and regulate businesses

within their jurisdictions. It should hardly be necessary to

mention that it is but a short step from such economic

regulation as exists at the present time to the

establishment of a completely regulated economy. And—be

it for better or for worse—all recognizable signs augur

more, rather than less, economic regulation for the future.

With government setting the example, it is little wonder

that many of the nation’s citi

zens anticipate the seemingly

inevitable and hasten to conform to standardized patterns.

Business firms that establish their own bureaucracies and

individuals who strive to be conformists are merely floating

with the tide that is carrying our society toward final, top-

to-bottom “structurization.”

There are abundant indications

that this is in the offing, that the civilization that produced

homogenized milk will soon produce the homogenized man.

Not long ago, the Federal Government, acutely concerned

over the shortage of scientific and engineering personnel in

the United States, launched a program designed to

encourage young people to become scientists and engineers.

To date, the technique employed has been one that seeks to

impel

young people to choose these careers. Public

statements by national leaders and other prominent

persons and widespread publicity campaigns aim to make

science and engineering attractive, to excite the

imaginations of the young and to sell the idea of following

such careers to students in hi

gh schools and colleges. Huge

money grants are financing the expansion of training

facilities at universities and colleges and are making it

possible for these institutions to offer scholarships and

fellowships on an unprecedented scale.

Now, all this is very necessary—and very much to the

good. But, considering the trend, it should not be too

difficult for any moderately imaginative person to visualize

a day when government will no longer

impel,

but will

compel

individuals to enter certain professions or career

fields.

One does not have to be a science-fiction addict to

imagine how this might be accomplished in a fully

programmed society. Somewhere in a government building,

an electronic computer whirs, calculating how many new

physicians the country will require six years hence. The

data obtained is fed into another machine which promptly

spews out punch cards on which are recorded the names of

the nation’s high school seniors who made the highest

scores on the medical section of the Standard Career

Aptitude Test. Within a few days, the students receive their

career-assignment notices through the zip-coded mails.

That such a system might prevail at some time in the

future is no longer a fantasy. It is a distinct possibility. We

have already passed the point of no return in our race to

establish the structured society.

“But then, we are headed for regimentation!” the reader

is Quite likely to protest. Well, we are—and we aren’t. I’ll

admit that at first glance, the difference between a

structured society and a regimented one may not be too

apparent. But there are differences—and very big

differences, at that. Although I can hardly say that I would

be overjoyed by the prospect of living in either, if forced to

make a choice, I would most certainly take the former.

As defined by common usage, the regimented society is

one produced by totalitarianism and dictatorship. It is

created, operated and controlled by a selfish and cynical

minority using ruthless methods and totally disregarding

the rights, welfare and human dignity of the majority. In it,

the majority exists solely to se

rve the ruling minority’s ends

and purposes. To me, at least, the regimented society

implies all the classic appurtenances of dictatorship—

terror, concentration camps—and the end to all human

dignity.

On the other hand, the structured society, as I choose to

understand it, is one that evolves with the consent—be it

active or tacit—of the majority of its’ members. Although it

is organized, regulated, standardized and programmed, its

goals are still to provide the greatest good for the greatest

number without using oppressive measures against any.

And, at least to these extents, the governing elements in

such a society are benevolent and altruistic in their intents.

They do not rely on rigged show trials or

Nacht und

Nehel

decrees to govern.

Stated simply, the regimented society is the Orwellian

nightmare, while the structured society is the do-good

social theoretician’s dull, monochromatic dream of Utopia.

The completely structured civilization will provide complete

security for its members, quite literally from womb to tomb.

The individual’s needs will be defined, anticipated and

met—not through his own foresight and abilities but by

government experts and administrators. They will watch

him—and watch over him. They will classify him, evaluate

his potentials, assign him to h

is tasks, supervise his life,

and press him into the mold they determine to be the one

he fits or should fit. They will, of course, do these things for

his “own good” and for the “good of society as a whole.”

Theoretically, at any rate, there will be very little

insecurity or want in this Erewhonian ants’ nest. The

individual will face few of the anxieties he is liable to

encounter in a freely competitive society. His progress

through life will be a measured journey up a neatly

structured ladder. He will go from one faceless level to

another, under constant surveillance by those appointed to

guard the rungs. “A slot for everyone—and everyone in his

slot,” will be the guiding principle.

It all promises to be rather boring. Whatever else the

structured society may or may not offer, it definitely will

not

offer the individual adventure or inspiration—and

precious little challenge. He will plod slowly along in the

groove provided him, knowin

g full well exactly what to

expect at every step.

Many forces are at work to bring this era of the

homogenized man ever closer. Each contributes its part in

preparing the ground and the

conditioning process which

will make the majority accept its advent without a

protesting murmur.

I’ve already dwelt at some length on the role played by

government, which tends to impress the patterns it has

adopted for its bureaucratic microcosms on the social

macrocosm. Business, too, hastens the coming of the

structured society—and, as a conceivable consequence, its

own doom—by its ever-increasing tendency to over

organize, to place more emphasis on procedural rules than

on production and to show more concern over committee

meetings than customers.

Many businessmen who complain most about

government’s bureaucratic meddling are lost in

bureaucratic labyrinths of their own making. Far too many

wallow in organizational charts, administrative directives

and quintuplicated memoranda, worrying more about doing

their paperwork than about doing business.

Labor unions contribute their share by such attitudes as

inflexible insistence that seniority rather than merit and

efficiency be the yardstick by which eligibility for promotion

is measured. Thus, the time server takes precedence and

receives preference over the toiler.

Schools and colleges do their not-inconsiderable bit by

producing overspecialized gr

aduates whose knowledge and

horizons are severely limited. An unfortunately large

percentage of students leave their schools ready tailored to

fit only the narrowest of grooves.

Individuals help accelerate the trend toward a

programmed social and economic system by their

complacent, almost bovine, acceptance of it all. In many

instances, they rush pell-mell to conform, to be the first to

enjoy the dubious fruits they hope to find in the safely

structured nirvana. Vast numbers have already anticipated

the dawn of homogenized civilization, but there are still

those who refuse to join the cults of the conformists, status

seekers and organization men which form the super

mystique of security at all costs.

One might well ask what, in an increasingly

standardized society, dominated by standardizing and

stultifying government, the individual can do to protect

himself from becoming a homogenized man. In my opinion,

there is much he can do.

In the first place, to be forewarned is to be forearmed.

The man who wants to be an individualist, call his life his

own and retain considerable freedom of will and action

should be alert to those acti

vities and courses of action

which might lead him unwittingly into the trap of

standardization. For instance, such comparatively simple

things as the reading of newspapers and listening to the

opinions of others—all with an

open mind tempered with a

bit of healthy skepticism—are a great help. Then, whenever

the individual is confronted with the necessity of making a

choice—be it in voting, choosing a career or a job, buying

something, or whatever—the question of whether he wants

(or thinks he wants) to do this or that should not be the

only consideration governing the choice. The individual

must also ask himself whether the choice will circumscribe

his life or make him more susceptible to the forces in our

society that tend to standardize people.

The would-be individualist will carefully examine his

motives for wanting something and ask himself whether he

is making his choice because it is safe, secure, easy. He will

strive to accept or reject so that he will maintain as much

mobility and personal freedom as possible. He will

understand that however high the price of courage and self-

determination, the rewards are ultimately far greater in

terms of personal satisfaction than can be obtained by

passively permitting himself to be trundled from infancy to

decrepitude by governments and institutions which may

indeed wish him well, but whic

h throttle his individualism.

I am convinced there will always be those who reject any

system that considers them as numbers, as code holes in a

punch card. Admittedly, the completely structured society

will be heaven on earth for

the meek conformists and for

those who lack imagination, initiative, self-confidence and

self-respect. But there will always be individualists and

they will always make their presence known as they assert

their individuality. Such persons have always existed and

will always exist, never content to have their lives

systematized. Whatever the forces against them, they live

their own lives and achieve their aims on their own.

I can’t honestly say that I think the over-all outlook is

very bright. I believe that more and more regulation,

standardization and uniformity are virtually inevitable—if

for no other reason than that populations and social and

economic problems have become too complex to be coped

with in any other manner.

There is, however, hope for any person who wants to

remain an individual. He can assert himself and refuse to

conform. He’ll be on his own, that’s true, but while he will

not have the security enjoyed by those who do conform,

there will be no limits to what he may achieve.

It shouldn’t be very difficult for anyone to resist the

temptation to force himself into the pattern of the

structured man. One needs only to remember that a groove

may be safe—but that, as one wears away at it, the groove

becomes first a rut and finally a grave.