A Reprint of Herbert Hoover's Article: "American Individualism"
|
|
Date Published: November 12, 2024
Date Modified: November 14, 2024 |
This is an article that was first published by “World’s Work” in April 1922 and was part of a speech Herbert Hoover intended to deliver as the U. S. Secretary of Commerce at an unidentified American university. Evidently this article, over the several decades of its appearance in print, was modified or updated several times. The version of the article used here was released in late 1922 and is the introductory chapter entitled “American Individualism” within a book of the same name [review of the book is here].
Headings, subheadings, footnotes and images were added by this author. The article was shortened and minor edits performed where and when it was felt appropriate to improve the readability for a reader without affecting the overall flow, tone and purpose of the piece.
Headings, subheadings, footnotes and images were added by this author. The article was shortened and minor edits performed where and when it was felt appropriate to improve the readability for a reader without affecting the overall flow, tone and purpose of the piece.
Peter E. Greulich, November 2024
AMERICAN INDIVIDUALISM
is the Social System—the Social Philosophy, that
Is the Foundation of Our Economic and Political Systems
is the Social System—the Social Philosophy, that
Is the Foundation of Our Economic and Political Systems
We have witnessed in this last eight years [1914 – 1922] the spread of revolutions over one-third of the world. The causes of these explosions lie at far greater depths than just the failure of governments in war.
The war in its last stages was a conflict of social philosophies—but beyond this the causes of the social explosions lay in the great inequalities and injustices of centuries that were flogged beyond endurance by the conflict [World War I], and freed from restraint by the destruction of war.
The urgent forces which drive human society have been plunged into a terrible furnace.
The war in its last stages was a conflict of social philosophies—but beyond this the causes of the social explosions lay in the great inequalities and injustices of centuries that were flogged beyond endurance by the conflict [World War I], and freed from restraint by the destruction of war.
The urgent forces which drive human society have been plunged into a terrible furnace.
American Individualism by Herbert Hoover
- Demagogues Promise to Solve All Human Ills
- There Are Several Social Philosophies Competing for Dominance
- American Individualism—Our Defining Social Philosophy, Is Under Attack
- Defining the Unique Features of “American” Individualism
- American Individualism Is Not Laissez Faire or Survival of the Fittest
- American Individualism Is a Uniquely American Social System
Demagogues Promise to Solve All Human Ills
|
Great theories spun by dreamers to remedy the pressing human ills have come to the front of men’s minds. Great formulas came into life that promised to dissolve all trouble. Great masses of people have flocked to their banners in hopes born of misery and suffering.
Nor has this great social ferment been confined to those nations that have burned with revolutions. Now, as the storms of war, revolution, and emotion subside there is left even with us of the United States much unrest, much discontent with our surer forces of human advancement. To all of us, out of this crucible of actual, poignant, individual experience has come a new understanding, and it is for all of us to ponder these new currents … if we are to shape our future with intelligence. Even those parts of the world that suffered less from the war have been infected by these ideas. Beyond this, however, many have had high hopes of civilization suddenly purified and ennobled by the sacrifices and services of the war; they thought that the fine unity of purpose gained in war would be carried in peacetime into a great unity of action to remedy civilization’s faults. But from concentration of every spiritual and material energy upon the single purpose of war the scene changed to the immense complexity of and the many purposes of peace. [See Footnote #1] |
Thus there loomed up certain definite underlying forces in our national life that need to be stripped of the imaginary and the transitory. A definition should be given to the actual permanent and persistent motivation of our—American, civilization. In contemplation of these questions we must go far deeper than the superficial of our political and economic structure—the machinery of our social system, for these are but the products of our social philosophy.
It is never amiss to review the political, economic, and spiritual principles through which our country has steadily grown in usefulness and greatness. This not only preserves these principles from being fouled by false notions, but also, more importantly, guides us on the road of progress.
It is never amiss to review the political, economic, and spiritual principles through which our country has steadily grown in usefulness and greatness. This not only preserves these principles from being fouled by false notions, but also, more importantly, guides us on the road of progress.
There Are Several Social Philosophies Competing for Dominance
Five or six great social philosophies are struggling for ascendency in the world.
|
There is the Individualism of America. There is the Individualism of the more democratic states of Europe with its careful reservations of castes and classes. There are Communism, Socialism, Syndicalism [See Footnote #2], Capitalism [See Footnote #3], and finally there is Autocracy—whether by birth, by possessions, by militarism, or by the divine right of kings. Even the “Divine Right” lingers on although our lifetime has seen fully two-thirds of the earth’s population, including Germany, Austria, Russia, and China, arrive at a state of angry disgust with this type of social motive power and throw it on the scrap heap.
All these thoughts are in ferment today in every country in the world. They fluctuate in ascendency with times and places. They compromise with each other in daily interactions between governments and peoples. Some of these ideas are perhaps more adapted to one race than another; but what we are interested in is their challenge to the physical and spiritual forces of America. |
|
American Individualism—Our Defining Social Philosophy, Is Under Attack
The W.W.I Plight of Belgian People.
|
The partisans of some of these other brands of social schemes challenge us to comparison; and some of their partisans—even among our own people, are increasing in their agitation that we adopt one of their devices in place of our proven individualism.
They insist that our social foundations are exhausted, and that like feudalism and autocracy, America’s plan has served its purpose—-that it must be abandoned. Because of this, there are those who have been left in sober doubt of our institutions or are confounded by bewildering catchwords of vivid phrases. For in this flurry of discussions there is much attempt to glorify or defame social and economic forces with phrases or platitudes. We should not disregard the potency of some of these phrases in their stir to action: “The Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” “Capitalistic Nations,” “Germany Uber Alles,” and a score of others. |
We need only to review those that have jumped on horseback during the last ten years in order that we may be properly awed by the great social and political havoc that can be worked where the bestial instincts of hate, murder, and destruction are clothed by the demagogue in the fine terms of political idealism.
|
For myself, let me say at the very outset that my faith in the essential truth, strength, and vitality of the evolving creed by which we have hitherto lived in this country of ours has been confirmed and deepened by the searching experiences of my seven years of service in the backwash and misery of war.
Seven years of contending with economic degeneration, with social disintegration, with incessant political dislocation, with all of its seething and ferment of individual and class conflict, could but impress me with the primary motivation of social forces, and the necessity for broader thought upon their great issues to humanity. And from it all I emerge an individualist—an unashamed individualist. But let me say also that I am an American Individualist. For America has been steadily developing the ideals that constitute progressive individualism. [See Footnote #4} |
|
No doubt, individualism run riot, with no tempering principle would provide a long grouping of inequalities, of tyrannies, of dominations, and of injustices. America, however, has tempered the whole concept of individualism by the injection of a definite principle, and from this principle it follows that attempts at domination are under an insistent curb, whether in government or in the processes of industry and commerce.
Defining the Unique Features of “American” Individualism
If we would have the values of individualism and their stimulation to initiative, to the development of hand and intellect, to the high development of thought and spirituality, they must be tempered with that firm and fixed ideal of American individualism--an equality of opportunity. If we desire these individualistic values we must soften its hardness and stimulate progress through that sense of service that lies in our people.
|
Therefore, it is not the individualism of other countries for which I would speak, but the Individualism of America.
Our individualism differs from all others because it embraces these great ideals: (1) that while we build our society upon the attainment of the individual, we shall safeguard to every individual an equality of opportunity to take that position in the community to which their intelligence, character, ability, and ambition entitle them; (2) that we keep the social solution free from frozen strata of classes; (3) that we shall stimulate effort of each individual to achievement; (4) that through an enlarging sense of responsibility and understanding we shall assist them to this attainment; (5) while each individual—in turn—must stand up to the emery wheel of competition. [See Footnote #5] Individualism cannot be maintained as the foundation of a society if it looks to only legalistic justice based upon contracts, property, and political equality. Such legalistic safeguards are themselves not enough. |
Given opportunity, each individual must still stand up to the “emery wheel” of competition.
|
American Individualism Is Not Laissez Faire or Survival of the Fittest
In our individualism we have long since abandoned the laissez faire of the 18th Century—the notion that it is “every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost.” We abandoned laissez faire when we adopted the ideal of equality of opportunity—the fair chance of an Abraham Lincoln.
We have confirmed laissez faire’s abandonment in terms of legislation, social, and economic justice: in part because we have learned that it is the hindmost individuals who throws the bricks at our social edifice, in part because we have learned that the foremost individuals are not always the best nor are the hindmost individuals always the worst, and, finally, in part because we have learned that social injustice is the destruction of justice itself.
We have learned that the impulse to production can only be maintained at a high pitch if there is a fair division of the product. We have also learned that fair division can only be obtained by certain restrictions on the strong and the dominant. [See Footnote #6]
We have indeed gone even further in the 20th Century [1900 to 1925] with the embracement of the necessity of a greater and broader sense of service and responsibility to others as a part of individualism. [See Footnote #7]
We have confirmed laissez faire’s abandonment in terms of legislation, social, and economic justice: in part because we have learned that it is the hindmost individuals who throws the bricks at our social edifice, in part because we have learned that the foremost individuals are not always the best nor are the hindmost individuals always the worst, and, finally, in part because we have learned that social injustice is the destruction of justice itself.
We have learned that the impulse to production can only be maintained at a high pitch if there is a fair division of the product. We have also learned that fair division can only be obtained by certain restrictions on the strong and the dominant. [See Footnote #6]
We have indeed gone even further in the 20th Century [1900 to 1925] with the embracement of the necessity of a greater and broader sense of service and responsibility to others as a part of individualism. [See Footnote #7]
American Individualism Is a Uniquely American Social System
Whatever may be the case with regard to Old World individualism (and we have given more back to Europe than we received from her) the truth that is important for us to grasp today is that there is a world of difference between the principles and spirit of Old World individualism and that which we have developed in our own country.
We have, in fact, a special social system of our own. We have made it ourselves from materials brought in revolt from conditions in Europe. We have lived it; we constantly improve it; but, unfortunately, we have seldom tried to define it.
We have, in fact, a special social system of our own. We have made it ourselves from materials brought in revolt from conditions in Europe. We have lived it; we constantly improve it; but, unfortunately, we have seldom tried to define it.
|
American Individualism abhors autocracy and does not argue with it, but fights it. American Individualism is not capitalism, or socialism, or syndicalism, nor a cross breed of them.
Like most Americans, I refuse to be damned by anybody’s word-classification of it, such as “capitalism,” “plutocracy,” “proletariat,” or “middle class,” or to any kind of categorization that is based on the assumption of some group dominating somebody else. The social force in which I am interested is far higher and far more precious a thing than all these. American Individualism springs from something infinitely more enduring; American Individualism springs from one source of human progress—that each individual shall be given the chance and stimulation for development of the best with which they have been endowed in heart and mind. This is the sole source of progress. It is American Individualism. |
Read the book review
|
Herbert Hoover, American Individualism, 1922
Footnotes:
#1: Maintaining peace after World War I was a difficult task. An example of one of the failures, from Ida M. Tarbell’s perspective, is found in her coverage of the “Conference on Limitation of Armament” held in Washington D.C. after World War I. In this case expectations were that the conference would lead to disarmament, when the conference was about the “limitation of armaments.” … Tarbell wrote the following in “Peacemakers—Blessed and Otherwise: Observations, Reflections and Irritations at an International Conference:”
“What it all amounted to was that the most drastic limitation [on armament] was no sure guarantee against future war. Take away a man’s gun and it is no guarantee that he will not strike if aroused. You must get at the man—enlarge his respect for order, his contempt for violence, change his notion of procedure in disputes, establish his control.
“It takes more than “gun toting” to make a dangerous citizen, more than relieving him of his gun to make a safe one.”
#2: Syndicalism is a movement that believes in transferring the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution to workers’ unions.
#3: Some readers may be confused with the inclusion of “Capitalism” with the likes of Communism, Socialism and “Autocracy.” It is important to include this from another article of Herbert Hoover’s on “Philosophic Grounds” for American Individualism: “Likewise the basic foundations of autocracy, whether it be class government or capitalism in the sense that a few individuals through unrestrained control of property determine the welfare of great numbers, is as far apart from the rightful expression of American individualism as the two poles.”
#4: Extensive information on Hoover’s handling of the Belgium Relief Effort during World War I is in his book, “The Ordeal of Woodrow Wilson” from which the following excerpt is taken. This excerpt is provided to assist the reader in understanding the hurdles Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover and America faced in helping those left in disastrous straights in Europe after World War I:
“I administered the Relief and Reconstruction of Europe directly under President Woodrow Wilson, but on behalf of all the victorious governments. That work required an organization in more than thirty countries with constant dealings with the Prime Ministers and high officials of each of the governments in Europe. Our organization included about 4,000 able Americans and many more thousands of local assistants. … An immense added burden was inflicted upon President Wilson [and obviously the relief effort] through continuance of the blockade on Central and Eastern Europe, whose 300,000,000 people were struggling to live and get on their feet. …
“The entire American group in Paris, from the President down, considered a rigid blockade utter folly because it created unemployment, prevented economic recovery, and fertilized Communism. The idea of a blockade [raised by England and France] to force a political objective or to punish by starvation was a horror to most Americans. Until we arrived in Europe, it had never occurred to any of us that the wartime blockade of food, medical supplies and clothing would be continued against the neutrals and the newly liberated countries, and in violation of the indirect promise made to Germany.”
#5: This statement of individualism should be eye-opening to many individuals in comprehending the “limitations” that are sometimes found in American Individualism. First and foremost, the “opportunities” may be limited if an individual comes up short in the intelligence, the character, the ability, or the ambition—the drive, to open opportunity’s door. Also, it is the individual, the person, the “self,” that is ultimately responsible for grasping, adapting and molding themselves (standing up to the emery wheel of competition as Hoover states it) to take advantage of opportunities provided by their communities. As we say in Texas, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.”
#6: Ida M. Tarbell’s “History of Standard Oil” published in McClure’s Magazine is one example of the United States placing “certain restrictions on the strong and dominant” in the business world. There are many others during this time of “muckraking” in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.
#7: To understand how the United States of America changed in its approach to business, politics and social issues in the first quarter of the twentieth century, this author recommends Mark Sullivan’s “Our Times.” This is a six volume set of books that steps chronologically through American history from the turn of the century through the “twenties.” Mark Sullivan wrote that “The purpose of this narrative is to follow an average American through this quarter century of his country’s history. … To appraise the actors of history and their activities according to the way they affected the average man.” This author has read and reviewed “Our Times” and highly recommends it and the method by which Mark Sullivan records and reviews our history from 1900 to 1925.
#1: Maintaining peace after World War I was a difficult task. An example of one of the failures, from Ida M. Tarbell’s perspective, is found in her coverage of the “Conference on Limitation of Armament” held in Washington D.C. after World War I. In this case expectations were that the conference would lead to disarmament, when the conference was about the “limitation of armaments.” … Tarbell wrote the following in “Peacemakers—Blessed and Otherwise: Observations, Reflections and Irritations at an International Conference:”
“What it all amounted to was that the most drastic limitation [on armament] was no sure guarantee against future war. Take away a man’s gun and it is no guarantee that he will not strike if aroused. You must get at the man—enlarge his respect for order, his contempt for violence, change his notion of procedure in disputes, establish his control.
“It takes more than “gun toting” to make a dangerous citizen, more than relieving him of his gun to make a safe one.”
#2: Syndicalism is a movement that believes in transferring the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution to workers’ unions.
#3: Some readers may be confused with the inclusion of “Capitalism” with the likes of Communism, Socialism and “Autocracy.” It is important to include this from another article of Herbert Hoover’s on “Philosophic Grounds” for American Individualism: “Likewise the basic foundations of autocracy, whether it be class government or capitalism in the sense that a few individuals through unrestrained control of property determine the welfare of great numbers, is as far apart from the rightful expression of American individualism as the two poles.”
#4: Extensive information on Hoover’s handling of the Belgium Relief Effort during World War I is in his book, “The Ordeal of Woodrow Wilson” from which the following excerpt is taken. This excerpt is provided to assist the reader in understanding the hurdles Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover and America faced in helping those left in disastrous straights in Europe after World War I:
“I administered the Relief and Reconstruction of Europe directly under President Woodrow Wilson, but on behalf of all the victorious governments. That work required an organization in more than thirty countries with constant dealings with the Prime Ministers and high officials of each of the governments in Europe. Our organization included about 4,000 able Americans and many more thousands of local assistants. … An immense added burden was inflicted upon President Wilson [and obviously the relief effort] through continuance of the blockade on Central and Eastern Europe, whose 300,000,000 people were struggling to live and get on their feet. …
“The entire American group in Paris, from the President down, considered a rigid blockade utter folly because it created unemployment, prevented economic recovery, and fertilized Communism. The idea of a blockade [raised by England and France] to force a political objective or to punish by starvation was a horror to most Americans. Until we arrived in Europe, it had never occurred to any of us that the wartime blockade of food, medical supplies and clothing would be continued against the neutrals and the newly liberated countries, and in violation of the indirect promise made to Germany.”
#5: This statement of individualism should be eye-opening to many individuals in comprehending the “limitations” that are sometimes found in American Individualism. First and foremost, the “opportunities” may be limited if an individual comes up short in the intelligence, the character, the ability, or the ambition—the drive, to open opportunity’s door. Also, it is the individual, the person, the “self,” that is ultimately responsible for grasping, adapting and molding themselves (standing up to the emery wheel of competition as Hoover states it) to take advantage of opportunities provided by their communities. As we say in Texas, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.”
#6: Ida M. Tarbell’s “History of Standard Oil” published in McClure’s Magazine is one example of the United States placing “certain restrictions on the strong and dominant” in the business world. There are many others during this time of “muckraking” in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.
#7: To understand how the United States of America changed in its approach to business, politics and social issues in the first quarter of the twentieth century, this author recommends Mark Sullivan’s “Our Times.” This is a six volume set of books that steps chronologically through American history from the turn of the century through the “twenties.” Mark Sullivan wrote that “The purpose of this narrative is to follow an average American through this quarter century of his country’s history. … To appraise the actors of history and their activities according to the way they affected the average man.” This author has read and reviewed “Our Times” and highly recommends it and the method by which Mark Sullivan records and reviews our history from 1900 to 1925.