The Homogenized Man

At 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 archdukes 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 à 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 early city-states of the ancient world, premiums were set on individuality in almost all things. But, with the emergence of the concept of empire, the movement toward uniformity was firmly established.

Within the Roman Empire, for example, such diverse things as laws, the administration 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 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 government. The chaotic patchwork remained until, at last, the feudal system that had evolved during the Dark Ages finally withered and died. Then, with the reemergence 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 women'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 especially 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 having his life completely regulated. (continued on page 66)Homogenized Man(continued from page 61)

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 do 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 register with the agencies handling Social Security, 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 the 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 citizens 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 be producing 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 high schools and colleges. Huge money grants are financing the expansion of training facilities at universities and colleges and are making it possible (continued on page 128)Homogenized Man(continued from page 66) 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 programed 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 serve the ruling minority's ends and purposes. To me, at least, the regimented society implies all the classic appurtenances of dictatorship--terror, concentration camps, firing squads--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 programed, 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 Nebel 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 his 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, knowing 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 overorganize, 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 graduates 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 programed 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 activities 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 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, organizations and institutions which may indeed wish him well, but which throttle his individualism.

I, for one, 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.