religion fastened its attention upon the relief of the unfortunate. Since the natural sympathetic reaction to distress was the impulse to help, religion readily annexed the relief of poverty to its realm, and an act of charity became an act well pleasing to God. Throughout the centuries and in all forms of social organization, therefore, the relief of distress has been a means of pleasing God. The Psalmist declares, "Blessed is he that considereth the poor," "He that giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord." Throughout the ages of Christian history, this motive has lost nothing of its power. Saint Cyprian, among the Apostolic Fathers, could go so far as to say that almsgiving washed away sin. The giving to beggars assumed such an importance in the religious life of the Middle Ages that the Order of Begging Friars arose partly from the opportunity which they afforded pious people to do good and thus lay up a treasure of good works. Even at the present time, the idea prevails among large sections of the people that a gift to the needy covers a multitude of sins. This motive for meeting the problem of poverty is essentially selfish, and blind not only to the welfare of the individual himself but to the social consequences of such acts. The word in the first passage quoted from the Psalms-"considereth"-is overlooked. Experience has shown that giving without consideration of the character of the person or the consequences of the gift, demoralizes rather than benefits.

Another motive leading to acts of charity was the political motive. As soon as society had developed to the place where the favor of people made possible political preferment, opportunity arose for the crafty politician to win followers by means of largesses to the needy. In the decadent days of Rome, this took the shape of corn and games. Among the ward bosses of our modern cities, it takes the shape of Thanksgiving turkeys and gifts in time of need to faithful followers. This motive also is not unmixed. Doubtless the politician is sorry for the poor; but like the religious motive and the sympathetic motive, it gives no discriminating consideration to the effects of a gift. upon the individual and upon society. The criterion that determines whether the gift should be given or not is not the welfare of either the individual or society, but the selfish advantage of the giver.

A fourth motive leading to almsgiving is the social motive. This motive grew out of the experience of society with indiscriminate giving. The sympathetic reaction to distress was fairly well suited to at situation in which the giver and the recipient were well known to each

other and connected either by ties of blood or long-continued fellowship in the community. It worked badly when applied to those whose circumstances and history were unknown to the giver. It produced the phenomena of confirmed beggary, because distress can be counterfeited with the result that no thoroughgoing discrimination between the person in real distress and the impostor is possible.

The religious motive resulted in sanctifying mendicancy for the sake of those who desired to do penance for their sins. The political motive corrupted the foundation of democracy. Each of these motives, in the complex conditions of society reached by modern civilization, failed to curb pauperism, to say nothing of preventing it; rather each encouraged it.

The social motive grows out of two desires, first, to promote the welfare of the individual who is given help to prevent his demoralization and to promote his independence; and, second, to promote the general welfare.

The Modern Approach to the Problem. The modern approach to the problem of poverty is based first on an investigation of the facts, not on philosophic theories or sentimental or religious appeals. If the individual is to be benefited by gifts, the circumstances of that individual must be known. This matter of investigation is an attempt. to re-create, so far as possible, the same intimate knowledge of the individual as was characteristic of the simple life in which the giver knew intimately the unfortunate. Says Fairchild: "Whatever the evil attacked, and whatever the agency attacking it, the principle is now uniformly accepted by scientific social workers that prevention, to the extent that it is possible, is immeasurably preferable to relief, and decidedly more economical than cure. In fact, the whole spirit of applied sociology is the spirit of prevention, based upon the only scientific ground-a knowledge and grasp of causes." 1 Second, it is based on a careful analysis of causes and conditions of poverty. The problem cannot be solved by one who has not carefully studied the conditions on which dependency hinges. Third, it emerges out of a growing sense of social causation and social responsibility. Growing out of the theological motive was the theological explanation of poverty, namely, that the poor were poor because of their sins. The modern approach is conditioned by an appreciation of the fact that the majority of people who come to want are the victim's of circumstances over which they have no control. Professor Seligman 'Fairchild, Applied Sociology, New York, 1916, p. 329.

1

says: "All remedies for poverty fall into one of two classes-the palliative or the curative-the endeavor to relieve poverty or the attempt to prevent poverty. The distinguishing feature of modern life is the growth of a public sentiment which seeks to cope with the evils of poverty from both points of view." Fourth, the modern. approach is based upon a consciousness of the close inter-relationship of individuals and social arrangements. If dependency is socially conditioned, a change in the social arrangements can cure or prevent its rise. Fifth, the trend is evermore towards remedying the conditions-political, economic, and social-that bring individuals to poverty. There is rapidly growing up the conviction that the antecedent conditions of poverty can be prevented by the attention of society to these conditions. Prevention is the note of modern charity. We appreciate as never before that every social circumstance has a bearing upon the problem. Economics, social medicine, social ideals, customs, traditions, legislation, attitude of the courts towards persons. and property, the relation of capital and labor, class struggle, home conditions, factory conditions, housing,-in short, a thousand things subject to social control modifiable in almost any direction society wishes, are the concomitant and antecedent circumstances of dependency. More and more the thinkers on these problems are attaining unto a faith that what exists in social circumstances can be changed by social determination, therefore the tendency at the present. time is, while not neglecting the individual who is in need, to place the emphasis upon preventive measures designed to eliminate inequalities of opportunity and circumstances which lead the individual to poverty. As Hollander remarks, "An aroused social consciousness is extending effort from positive care to preventive foresight, and placing limitation to the increase of pauperism as social disease." 2

Once-indeed, until quite recently--a strange fatalism marked the discussion of the problem. It was assumed that some were destined to be rich and powerful, to have leisure and culture, while others were doomed to lifelong toil, to meager culture, if any at all, to want, to haunting fear of pauperism, and to all the train of evils following in the wake of penury. This smug philosophy on the part of the fortunate on the one hand and the patient acceptance of a hard lot as a dispensation of a wise Providence or a remorseless Fate, on the other, are now being questioned. Once economics and Darwinian

2

Seligman, Principles of Economics, New York, 1907, p. 687.

Hollander, Abolition of Poverty, p. 4.

science joined hands in consecrating as a law of progress the doctrine that the poor and the weak deserve no consideration; that the struggle for existence is Nature's method of perfecting the race; and that the poor and the weak must be allowed to suffer and perish-the more quickly the better. Now, however, both economics and science have found not only their souls, but have discovered that non-interference with the social arrangements which produce weakness and want not only crush the "unfit,” but also injure the potentially "fit." The great English economist, Alfred Marshall, says: "The dignity of man was proclaimed by the Christian religion; it has been asserted with increasing vehemence during the last hundred years; but it is only through the spread of education during quite recent times that we are beginning at last to feel the full import of the phrase. Now at last we are setting ourselves seriously to inquire whether it is necessary that there should be any so-called 'lower classes' at all; that is, whether there need be large numbers of people doomed from their birth to hard work in order to provide for others the requisites of a refined and cultured life; while they are prevented by their poverty and toil from having any share or part in that life.” 1

.

Likewise, modern science recognizes that in human society other factors than "natural selection" must be considered. Thus, Thompson, the biologist, has written, "By analogy, then, it seems on a priori grounds legitimate to expect that biological analysis applied to the life and history of societary forms will be fruitful; But the analogy also suggests that the result of analysis in terms of lower categories will in the long run be to bring the distinctively social into stronger relief, and that certain progress in the utilization of biological formulae will depend on the relative completeness with which the biological factors operative in social activity can be discovered. A chemico-physical analysis of organic processes which left out electrical factors would be inept, indeed; a biological analysis of social processes which left out, say, the 'mutual aid' instinct, would, we venture to think, be equally fallacious." He further remarks: "Not a few sociological writers have echoed the warning of Herbert Spencer that modern hygienic and therapeutic methods interfere with the natural elimination of the weaklings whose survival consequently becomes a drag on the race, and there is doubtless some force in the argument, especially if we could confine ourselves to an entirely biological out1Marshall, Principles of Economics, London and New York, 1891, p. 3.

2

2

Thompson, Heredity, London, 1912, p. 513.

look. It appears to us, however, that the practical corollary that we should cease from interfering with natural selection, as the phrase goes, is as fallacious as it is impossible.

I. It seems a little absurd to speak of, say, the prevention of an artificially exaggerated infantile mortality as if it were an interference. with the order of nature.

2. Much weakness which may readily become fatal is simply modificational, due perhaps to lack of nutrition at a critical moment; many weakly children grow up thoroughly sound; and even if we do keep alive some whose constitutions are intrinsically bad, we are at the same time saving and strengthening many whose intrinsically good constitutions only require temporary shelter. One enthusiast over microbic selection says, 'The higher the infantile death-rate which medicine so energetically combats, the surer is the next generation of being purged of all the weakly and sickly organisms.' But he omits to record the fact that the infantile maladies also affect the intrinsically strong and capable, and often weaken them, one might say, quite gratuitously.

3. Many of the microbic agents which thin our ranks are very indiscriminate in their selection, and even if we believed that in warring against microbes we are eliminating the eliminators who have made our face what it is-as the enthusiastic apologists for Bacteria declare it is surely open to us to put other modes of selection into operation. It were a sad confession of incapacity if man could not select better than bacteria.

4. Finally, since we cannot keep the biological outlook, is it ridiculously old-fashioned to plead that even when the physical constitution is miserable, the weakling may be a national asset worth saving, for its mental endowment, for instance, and for other reasons? That the weakling is to be allowed to breed more weaklings if it can, is another matter. Everyone agrees that the reproduction of weaklings. should be discouraged in every feasible way--in every way compatible. with rational social sentiment."1

TOPICS FOR REPORTS

I. The Results of the Religious Motive in Almsgiving. Warner, American Charities. Third Edition, pages 5-8; Lecky, History of European Morals, Vol. II, pages 79-101.