Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 5.djvu/762

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

A NEGLECTED PRINCIPLE IN CIVIC REFORM.

The most distinctive feature in programs for civic reform is an excess of utilitarianism. Reformers are training their energies to impress the public consciousness with the advantages — pecuniary and qualitative — of certain changes in municipal methods. For example, in the line of public works the argu- ments for and against the day-labor system are addressed to the selfish interests of different classes of individuals. The laborer is assured that his interests will be furthered in respect to his compensation, in greater security of tenure in his employ- ment, to the conditions under which he labors, and to shorter hours of labor. The same line of selfish appeal is resorted to in addressing the taxpayers and the consumers of public utilities. It is either the taxpayer who is assured that the work will be more economically done because of the diminished opportunities for jobs and corruption, or the general public which is assured that it will be better done for the same reasons. Schemes for municipal lighting, for municipal water-works, and for municipal tramways are all supported exclusively by utilitarian arguments. The arguments are economic rather than social.

It is also to be noted that what may be termed municipal radicalism extends no farther than to those utilities which have come to be denominated necessities — utilities which belong to the practical, everyday side of life. They include such household necessities as water, lighting, and heating, and they sometimes include such services as municipal telephone and tram systems. In every case the proposition is supported, either from the stand- point of the taxpayer, who may be offered a relief from his present burden of taxes by the net earnings of the proposed municipal system, or from the standpoint of the general public, which is offered cheaper rates or fares.

Civic radicalism never goes so far in this country as to pre- sent a program which invades the sphere of aesthetics, or which offers to minister in any new lines to the culture-pleasures of the

746