Patton, Robert D.

English

Research Papers in Economics

THE  ECONOMIC  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  UNITED
STATES:  IS  THE  ORGANIZATION  MAN
DESTROYING  OUR  TRADITIONAL
INDIVIDUALISM?
Robert D.  Patton
Department of  Economics
Ohio State  University
The social philosophy  and the social problems  of almost any age
can be phrased  in  terms  of  the  relationship  between  the  one  and
the many.  This  is  nothing less  than  the problem  of  how  the  indi-
vidual human being who in his physiological  life lives and breathes
and dies as an individual  can also be a social creature who lives in a
society of other human beings and has his actions  determined  in so
very many ways by the pressures  of that society.
Our  problems  of  government,  of  social  status,  as  well  as  of
economic  well-being,  may  all be  embraced within  this broad  cate-
gory of the relationship between the one and the many.  Fortunately
for  ourselves,  we  live  in  an  age  and  in  a  country  in  which  the
opportunity for self-expression  by the individual  citizen is as great
as it has been at any point in history and in any civilization that has
ever  existed. At least this broad statement  is true when  applied to
so many millions of us, as it may be in the United States of America
and the Western world.
FREEDOM  OF  THE  INDIVIDUAL
Since we live at such a pinnacle in the social development  of the
world, perhaps it would be useful to look back  over the paths upon
which  our ancestors  have  led  us, to  see  something  of  the  manner
in which these  rights of the individual have been achieved. I think
we may say  that the individualism  of the modern  age  is  a product
of  the  reaction  against  the  rigidities  of  a  medieval,  authoritarian
society.  As  various  economic,  political,  and social  developments  of
the  medieval  social  system  began  to  injure  some  individuals-at
least in their own opinion-opposition  to these  authoritarian  insti-
tutions  arose.
Out of the opposition,  developed the point of view which became
the  theory  of  the  natural right  of  individuals.  This  doctrine  was
European in origin  and European  in its earliest  expression.  It gave
rise to  the governments  which  today we  call  democratic.  In many
respects,  it became  more  solidly  entrenched  in  the  United  States
than elsewhere in the world.
176For us, it was doubly fortunate that the great continent of North
America lay open  to the exploitation  of  the white  man.  If we  can
bypass  our  treatment  of  the  red  men-that  dark  side  of  the
settlement  of North  America-we  can  state  that the  abundant  re-
sources of this great continent gave freer rein to the tendencies lead-
ing toward an individualistic  society than occurred,  even in Europe,
where these institutions had their birth.
In America, in an age in which  the ownership  of land seemed to
be symbolic  of freedom in almost  all of its aspects,  the great abun-
dance  of land became  equated with  economic  and political  oppor-
tunity. This became  a  country  of fierce  individualism,  and  as  this
individualism expressed itself in many ways through the centuries,
the  free  institutions  by  which  we  like  to  be  identified  today  de-
veloped.  These  institutions,  nowhere more  deeply established  than
among the millions  who became the tillers  of our soil,  guarantee  to
individuals  freedom  before  the  law,  freedom  for  self-expression,
freedom  of  religion,  and  freedom  in  the  many  other  ways  which
constitute  our spiritual heritage.
RESTRICTION  OF  FREEDOM  BY  SOCIETY
For many  decades  this  system  of  individualism  worked  exceed-
ingly  well.  However,  as  time  passed,  difficulties  began  to  appear,
as they inevitably  will.  For  one  thing,  when  only individual  self-
interest was considered,  the vast resources  of this continent  in soil,
minerals,  and forests began to suffer  seriously. Thoughtful  persons
began to be concerned for the economic future of a nation in which
individuals,  for  their own private  profit,  could  use  and  waste  re-
sources in ways that might  make  them unavailable  for  the use  of
future generations.
Furthermore, as the population of the country grew, and as addi-
tional  facilities  for  communication  and  transportation  were  re-
quired,  railways  were  built  apparently  for  the  sole  profit  of  the
builders.  It was  quite obvious to  everyone  else that  the purpose  of
railways  should  be  to  serve  the  needs  of  a  growing  society.  The
difference  was not at first realized. Since our society was so largely
agrarian in this era, the dwellers  upon the soil became the first and
most serious  sufferers  from  a  policy  of  private  development  and
management  of  these great transportation  facilities.  Yet, obviously
the economic  well-being  of farmers and their very existence on the
soil  depended  upon  the  availability  of  transportation  which  the
railways  provided.
How  could the use  and the abuse  of transportation  facilities  be
177harmonized?  Could people enjoy  the benefits provided without  suf-
fering  from  the  abuses  which  seemed  to  accompany  the  benefits?
As history tells us, the  people on the  farms were the first to  decide
that something had to  be done  about an intolerable  situation.  What
the something should be was not clear, but nonetheless  the agitation
which eventually  led to  the development  of what  we now  call  the
legal concept  of  a  public utility  had  its origin  in the  protestations
of farmers.
While these  things were happening  in the field  of transportation
and on the land, technological  developments in industry were bring-
ing about  the growth  of great monopolistic  companies  in  steel  and
in  other  types  of  manufacturing.  Competition  became  cut-throat
between  great  companies,  each  of  which  had  developed  sufficient
capacity  to  supply  large  markets,  not  only  throughout  the  nation
but throughout  the world.
What  was  the  underlying  meaning  of  these  events  which  were
occurring  in the latter  half  of the nineteenth  century  in  America?
In the  first place,  the processes  of competition  in the  market  place,
as  they  had  been  visualized  by  some  of  the  theorists  of  the  late
eighteenth  and  early  nineteenth  centuries,  were  obviously  no
longer  working  out  in  practice.  Also,  social  pressures  were  build-
ing  up  to  a  high  point  demanding  specific  levels  of  service  and
performance  from  businesses  which  had  become  very  large.
The pressures  of  the  many were  being  brought  to  bear  on  the
one.  We  continued  to think  of the  one  as  only one even  if it was  a
great  firm  employing  thousands  of persons.  Neither  did  it seem  to
matter that such firms  operated  with capital  raised  from  the  con-
tributions  of many thousands of stockholders.  The mass production
and mass transportation  provided  by our great  industries  and rail-
roads tended  to mold the  lives  of the American  people into  corres-
ponding patterns.
We became  a nation  which  did not work  or  live  as individuals.
Individuals  who  wished  to  get  ahead  in the  world had  to  do  their
climbing inside great organizations  rather than independently.  From
a  social point  of view, great pressures arose not to be different from
our neighbors and fellow employees.
Did this development  of  a  changed  attitude  mean that the indi-
vidual's freedom to be different was being stifled?  Did it mean that
creative  imagination  was  being  suppressed?  Must  we  as  human
beings  be as alike,  think  as alike,  and act  as alike  as the proverbial
peas in the pod?  Is the individual farmer or businessman,  or for that
matter, the individual academic  scholar, an outdated antique?BALANCING  FREEDOM  AND  RESTRICTION
If any  of these questions  point the way  toward  even  a  shred  of
truth about  our past,  can  we now  do  anything  about it?  Whatever
we may think about this question,  the collective  forces  which have
modified our  social  and economic  life are  here to  stay. Transporta-
tion  and communication  have  inevitably  thrown  us  together  more
intimately  than ever before  in history.  For that  matter, this  is  not
only true  of the American  people  but  it is  true,  and  is  a  source  of
trouble,  throughout  the world.
This,  then,  leads  us  to  the  further  question:  Is  freedom,  as  it
was  conceived  by  the founders  of our  country,  any longer  possible
in  a  truly  operational  sense?  Is  freedom  merely  a  word  that  we
continue to use out of habit derived from the past? Can anything  be
done  to  carry  forward  into  our future  the values  which  we  sense
and cherish  dearly from  our past?
Clearly, what  we would like  to do is  preserve  the best from  our
past-the  initiative,  the  opportunity  for  creativeness-and  at  the
same  time  to  coordinate  these  aspects  of  individual  freedom  with
the  stability and efficiency  of social  order maintained  on a society-
wide  scale.  Is  this possible  without,  as  Hayek  has  said,  permitting
the  social  order to  slip into authoritarianism?
Some  persons,  such  as  Hayek,  believe  that  we  cannot  find  a
stable middle point between  individualism,  on the one hand, and an
extreme  authoritarianism,  on the other.  This point  of view may,  of
course,  be  correct,  but it  seems  to resemble  too strongly  a kind  of
black  and  white  resolution  of  issues  which  is  contrary  to  much
that we find to be true in historical  development.  Rather,  our  task
seems to be to recognize the difficulty, and to so direct our activities
and modify our institutions that we prevent  our  society  from being
pushed into either extreme.
What we  really want for  ourselves  is nothing less than the best
of  two  worlds-the  world  of  creative  individualism,  on  the  one
hand, and  the  world  of social  efficiency  and stability,  on the other.
Are  they compatible?  Can we create  a kind of society in which  we
may  achieve  these  two  desirable  objectives  simultaneously?
This  is  the  problem  of the one  and  the many  in  modern  guise.
The  answer  to  it  is  assuredly  not  simple  or  easily  given.  Rather,
each  of us in his own zone  of activity  probably needs  to work out  a
resolution  of  this  dilemma  for himself.  The  mode  of  harmonizing
these  two  diverse  tendencies  may  be  quite  different,  both in  kind
and in degree,  in  different  areas  of  our total life pattern.
179In many respects, avoiding the standardizing tendencies  of social
pressure  may not be important.  The integrity  of my personality  is
not  damaged  by the necessity  to  dress in  conventional  manner.  In
such  cases,  resistance  is  obviously  foolish.  In  other  areas-those
which relate  primarily to the mind and  the spirit-preservation  of
full freedom  for individual  self-expression  and for free play  of  his
creative  imagination  is  of  the  greatest  importance.  Just  how  this
may work out is,  of course,  a matter which no  one can predict.  The
very  essence  of  individualism  and  of  creative  imagination  is that
they cannot  be predicted  precisely.  All we know is that when they
flourish  they  have been  the source  of  the greatest  progress  which
mankind has been  able to make.  We know that they  are the pearls
of great price  in human  affairs.
Our  history  shows  us  that  we  do  not  achieve  this  desirable
condition  merely  by removing  the barriers  of an  ancient  order  of
society which has  become  restrictive.  Rather,  if we  wish to have a
free  society composed  of free and imaginative  individuals,  we have
to  achieve  it  by  creating  a  social  structure  which  will  encourage
variability  and creativeness.  We seem to have a great deal to learn,
and a great deal to achieve  in this  area.
Our  educational  system  must  do  a  very  great  deal  more  than
condition students of any age, from first graders to Ph.D. candidates,
to  be  mere  repeaters  of  wisdom  which  they  have  learned  from
others.  Rather,  we  must  begin  to  instruct  our  children  from  the
earliest  age in the family  and in  the school  system from beginning
to end, in the joint responsibility of developing  creative imagination
and,  at the  same  time,  of  maintaining  a sense  of personal  respon-
sibility for social  order.
In  other  words,  what  we  need  to  learn  is  that,  in  the  modern
version,  the problem  is not the one versus the many, but the fulfill-
ment of the one through the many.
We  speak today  of the organization  man, and  we  usually do  so
humorously,  or even  sarcastically.  However,  realistically,  everyone
of us must be  an organization  man. We must live our lives and earn
our livings  in  larger  social  groupings  which,  in fact,  are  organiza-
tions  if  they  function  efficiently.
We  may  scorn  the organization  man  because  he  is sensitive  to
the characteristics  of  the  social  groups  in  which  he  is placed.  He
knows  whom  to flatter and  whom  to  scold.  He knows  when  to  be
subservient and when he can  afford to be overbearing.  He can  pick
180the right persons  to cultivate  and to ignore.  Not  all of  these types
of behavior are admirable, but they are used because they work.
Perhaps  all  of  us-whether  we  are  placed  at  the  top,  in  the
middle,  or  at  the  bottom  of  organizations-need  to  learn  more
about the operational characteristics  of  social groupings.  If we  did,
possibly the undesirable  aspects of the behavior  of the organization
man  could  not  achieve  success  for  him.  Perhaps  the  real  core  of
satisfactory  functioning  within  organizations,  as  the  individual
might see it, is sufficient  consideration  of others in the organization
that all may function smoothly in the performance  of shared tasks.
Perhaps if all  of us had better  understanding  of the  psychological
aspects  of working together, which economic  necessity  dictates,  our
various organizations would offer less fertile fields for those smooth
"operators"  and unprincipled  "climbers"  whom  we  often call  orga-
nization men.
The point I  am trying to establish  is that social  pressures  exist,
and that the  individual  can be  preserved  as  a  viable  and  creative
entity only  within  the structural  frame  of  society  and,  in the last
analysis,  by society.  That  is, the  functioning society  really  creates
the individual with all of his potential  for insight, imagination,  and
inventiveness.
To resist blindly the encroaching  pressures  of social control  can
conceivably be harmful to the full growth of the individual.  What is
needed  in this  respect  is extremely  hard to  define  and to  achieve,
namely  a  proper  discrimination.  We  must  strive  to  understand
better  both  the  individual  and  the  society,  for the  two  must  cer-
tainly  live  and  grow  conjointly.  To  achieve  this  kind  of  under-
standing  is a mark  of individual  self-fulfillment.  At the  same  time
it is proof that the individual  is living within  what must  be classi-
fied as a  good  society.
CONCLUSION
I  do not know what relevance  such thoughts  as mine  may have
for the great problems of American agriculture.  If I have succeeded
in  making  my  central  idea  clear,  you  will  be  able  to  consider
whether it has any significance  for agricultural  policy.  I do have  a
"three  minute"  solution  for the  American  farm  problem,  but  it  is
so eminently simple  and sensible that it does not have the slightest
shred  of  practicability  about  it. The  hard and  slow job  is for you.
A philosophy does  not  solve  problems for you;  it  gives  you  guide-
lines within which useful  solutions may be found with enough hard
work. But, to prove how foolish  I am, I will venture a few opinions
181which  seem to  me to  be  in keeping  with  the  general  social  philo-
sophy  I have  espoused.
I  question  whether  preservation  of  the family  farm  is  a  viable
objective  of farm policy. With transportation  and communication  as
they  are now,  I  think separation  of  urban  and rural  governmental
units  is  harmful  to  both.  I  think  rural  youth  should  be  given  au-
thentic  information  about  the  economics  and  sociology  of  non-
agricultural  employment,  just as urban youth should get such  infor-
mation  about rural  occupations.  In  other words,  I believe  the  com-
plete blending  of rural and urban life  should be  a matter of policy.
We should not be able to tell a farmer from a steelworker  or a store-
keeper,  except  perhaps  by  the  shade  of his end-of-summer  suntan,
and  the  cosmetic  manufacturers  have  about  eliminated  that.  Cer-
tainly, we  should have no class or  income  differential.  But,  if all  of
this were brought about,  you would have to look  for different  jobs.
182

THE ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY OF THE UNITED STATES: IS THE ORGANIZATION MAN DESTROYING OUR TRADITIONAL INDIVIDUALISM?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics