COMMENT AND REVIEW
With the May issue of the American Magazine closes the first set of papers on “The American Woman,” by Miss Ida Tarbell. She has to a high degree the historian’s power to collate facts and so marshall them as to give a clear picture of the time and scenes in question. I always read her work with admiration and respect, also with enjoyment, personal and professional. The strong, far-seeing mind at work; the direct style; and the value of the subject matter, place this writer high among our present day teachers.
For these reasons I was wholly unprepared for the painful shock caused by reading the opening page in the March number of these articles. Preceding issues had treated of the rise of the Equal Suffrage movement in this country; while not wholly sympathetic, these were fair, and ably treated.
The March number begins: “What was the American Woman doing in the ’40’s and ’50’s that she went on her way so serenely while a few of her sex struggled and suffered to gain for her what they believed to be her rights?” And she goes on to show for what reason she kept out of the Woman’s Rights Movement, “reasons, on the whole, simple and noble.”
Here are the reasons.
“She was too much occupied with preserving and developing the great traditions of life she had inherited and accepted. . . . She was firmly convinced that these traditions were the best the world had so far developed, not merely for women, but for society. She did not deny that women had not the full opportunity they should have; but as she saw it, no more did men. She saw civil and educational and social changes going on about her. She feared their coming too fast rather than too slow.
“And it was no unworthy thing that she was doing. Take that part of her life so often spoken of with contempt—her social life. Those who would pass society by as a frivolous and unworthy institution are those who have never learned its real functions—who confuse the selfish business of amusement with the serious task of providing an intimate circle for the free exchange of ideals and of service, for stimulus and enjoyment.
“It is through society that the quickening of mind and heart best comes about—that the nature is aroused, the fancy heightened. It is the very foundation of civilization—society. The church and state work through it. Morals are made and unmade in it. Ideas find life or death there.”
The italics are mine.
For so clear-headed a woman as Miss Tarbell to commit herself to statements like these was a keen disappointment to a sincere admirer. I have quoted at length that there may be no mistake as to her meaning. The “society” referred to is unmistakably that business of exchanging entertainments which most of us do pass by as “a frivolous and unworthy institution;” but which some find the sufficient occupation of a lifetime.
That human intercourse is profoundly important no one will deny; we know that contact and exchange does quicken the mind and heart, does give stimulus and enjoyment. It is even true in a large sociological sense that human intercourse is the foundation of civilization. But to call “society” the foundation of civilization does seem like putting a very long train of carts before the horse.
Women who work for suffrage, like other women, and men also, need to meet other people, need relaxation, need the stimulus of contact with differing minds, and get it. Being a suffragist is not like being a leper—or a pauper—or excommunicated. There is nothing about the belief itself to cut off the believer from her kind, and make it impossible to invite her to dinner.
“Society” is of course averse to meeting persons who talk seriously of important things. We are all taught as children that religion and politics must not be discussed in society—and the cause of woman suffrage is often both.
“The selfish business of amusement” is so predominant in “society” that amusing people are the preferred guests; and if some earnest and noteworthy person is drawn into “society” as a temporary exhibit, he is expected to be amusing if he can, and not talk “shop.”
It may be admitted at once that Miss Tarbell’s main contention is true. It was of course because most women were so occupied in “preserving and developing the great traditions of life” that they could not open their minds to new convictions. They were of course suspicious of change, so is the mass of people at all times, in proportion to their ignorance. The deadening effect of a ceaseless round of housework keeps most women from grasping general issues of importance; and the deadening effect of a ceaseless round of entertainments does the same thing to the few who represent “society.” But to have that “society” presented to us as a noble soul-satisfying rightfully exclusive occupation, is a shock.
If it is a natural, simple right form of meeting together it is in no way forbidding to woman suffragists. If it is the “round of gaieties” to which our newspapers give columns—how does it accomplish all those invaluable achievements Miss Tarbell enumerates?
What are the occupations of “society?” Its members are always getting together in expensive clothes, to visit and receive, to eat and drink, to ride and drive, to dance and play games, to go to the opera; and to travel from town to country, from beach to mountain, from land to land, to repeat these things or to hire some one to invent new ones. But these pleasures cannot be in themselves the foundation of civilization! The “exchange of ideals and service” alleged to take place in “society” must be in conversation! It is by this medium that we get our minds and hearts quickened—our natures aroused—our fancy heightened—that the ideas find life and death, and morals are made and unmade.
During which process of “society” does the conversation which promotes the exchange of ideals and service best come about? Is it in the talk of women who are “paying calls?” Is it in the talk at a “tea” or reception? Is it in the talk at a luncheon or a dinner? Is it in the talk over the card-table, or while dancing? Is it in talk at the horse-show or opera? (The pressure of ideas in society is so great that its members do converse at the opera.)
Surely it cannot be “society” which Miss Tarbell means! She must mean human intercourse—the meeting of congenial minds. But no; that is open to the suffragist as well as to any; and no one ever called it a frivolous and unworthy institution.
The meaning is clear enough, but the claims made are to say the least unconvincing.