is the general meaning the individual has learned to attribute to his universe. This meaning is, for the most part, the joint product of his race-tradition and his experience in his profession or trade. These two operate jointly but not necessarily equally or consistently. The race-tradition is largely communicated through action, after the manner of a public school tradition. The public

school does not inculcate moral maxims; it insists upon a certain code of conduct and leaves the individual to make explicit or not, as he may choose, the principles upon which such conduct is based. Comparatively few individuals in any society make, or are capable of making, any sustained endeavour to understand the tradition thus communicated to them. In such cases the tradition does not operate in trains of reasoning except as a "sentiment." In the latter form, as "patriotism" or "class-consciousness," it may exercise a powerful influence on conduct and yet, from the standpoint of an external observer, may be apparently inconsistent with the principles to which a given individual openly professes adherence. This probably explains why it possible for many Australians to be strongly opposed to all forms of conscription and yet to be firm believers in the imperial destiny of the British peoples and to have several sons fighting the common enemy in France.

The other determining factor is, however, the more important. For every individual there is a special class of problems to which he is compelled to give the closest attention. His occupation presents him with difficulties which he must "think out" to the best of his ability both individually and in concert with his fellow tradesmen. Every group-occupation has its own skilled logic and tradition, and every member of a group understands, in greater or less degree, its special logic. This factor in development, therefore, affects communal thinking as the race-tradition does not. By this means the race-tradition is itself gradually

altered as the years pass; every political notion is brought to the test of this circle of ideas. The way in which each of us sees the world is determined, in the main, by the occupational group which claims us as a member. Educated or uneducated, logical or unreasoning, we are all creatures of an occupation; not wealth acquired, but work done, determines the angle from which we view society and the world.

Viewed from the sociological standpoint, society is composed of individuals organised in occupational groups, each group fulfilling some function for the society. Taking this fact into account, psychology-the science of human nature and human consciousness-is able to make at least one general assertion as to the form a given society must take, if it is to persist as a society. It must be possible for the individual to feel, as he works, that his work is socially necessary; he must be able to see beyond his group to the society. Failure in this respect will make disintegration inevitable. Social unity must be a conscious unity, known and recognised by every group and individual; the alternative is disruption. The occupational aspect of social activity is, therefore, fundamental; singleness of vision within the group, a right attitude of the various groups to one another and to the society-these things are an index of social health. The question we have to consider, with special reference to Australia, is whether with the development of society. its power of internal cohesion has correspondingly increased. In effect, this question asks if it is possible for the individual to feel, under the conditions imposed by the present social order, that his daily work aids the fulfilment of a social function-it asks if it is possible for him to see beyond his group to the society.

The present social order in Australia, as in Europe, is largely a result of the industrial expansion of the nineteenth century. The beginning of the nineteenth century resembled the present era in that it was a period of rapid and

somewhat disorderly growth. In order that the civilised world might grow to larger powers, previous industrial systems had to be superseded. The process of supersession was characterised by an extreme industrial chaos, a chaos that was regarded as legitimate and right by the social and economic theories of the time. Competition, the survival of the fittest, was the chief article of the ruling economic creed; the politician was warned to refrain from interfering with trade and commerce. The twentieth century has seen the termination of this competitive disorder. From the chaos have arisen the twin forces of Capitalism and Industrialism, armed at all points. And the question of the relation of these to the social structure becomes imperative. What is the attitude of Capitalism and Industrialism to society? Do these great movements help the individual to see the society beyond his groupoccupation, or is their vision limited by a wrong conception of class-interest?

industrial

The economic problems which an group has to face at any given moment are the result of contemporary economic conditions; the manner in which the members of the group view these problems is largely determined by inherited traditions. These traditions, social and industrial, may of themselves create new problems or make more complicated those which already exist. If we are to ascertain what factors go to make up the mind of the working class or of the employing class, we cannot do otherwise than begin by examining the historic facts. In Australia the "industrialist" tradition is essentially English; English in origin, it is constantly renewed by the advent of English trade-unionists whose views tend to be more revolutionary than those of the nativeborn Australian. The working-class point of view with respect to social problems in Australia, as in England, is, in the main, the outcome of the industrial conditions of the nineteenth century. A

recently-published book* throws a lurid light upon the facts of nineteenth century industry. The authors show that boys and girls from the age of five upwards were employed in mines, working twelve hours at a time, “chained, belted, harnessed like dogs in a go-cart; black, saturated with wet, more than half naked-crawling upon their hands and feet and dragging their heavy loads behind them." Nor was this all; the new industrial system "made a money wage earned by women and children, as well as men, the basis of the workman's economic life." In other words, the employment of unfortunate children, under conditions such as these, was made a reason for paying their fathers less. "In respect of its enduring consequences," add the authors, "this was the most important fact about the new civilisation."

These children, when they grew to man's estate, were the workers of the next generation; as such, they were the persons responsible for the formation of the social traditions of the present working class. What can they have thought of the society that used their years of childhood thus? These are the facts which have converted practically all the technical and manual workers of our civilisation into Marxian Socialists. Wages and working conditions, especially in Australia, have improved, but the social scar remains. Even improved conditions have been won in the teeth of the opposition of the employing class. The average worker of the present sees industries not as social functions, but as the scene of a "class-war' between the employing and the working classes. He believes, and not without historic justification, that capitalistic" society is altogether careless of his bodily and his mental welfare.

Beliefs of this description would not continue to survive if contemporary industrial conditions were such that the notion of a "class-war" could be

*The Town Labourer, 1760-1832: J. L. and Barbara Hammond.

shown to be obviously false. Unfortunately, there is all too much evidence of class opposition, which lends itself to easy description in Marxian terms. In August, 1917, coincidently with the Sydney railway strike, the waterside workers in Melbourne refused to handle foodstuffs for export, except for troops. The reason they gave for their action was that "profiteering was going on with respect to the local food supply. The conservative press of Australia pointed to the fact of the extensive wheat accumulations, also to the existence of a Board to control prices, and claimed that the accusation of profiteering was unjustifiable. Some months later, an inquiry conducted by the Federal Inter-State Commission elicited the fact that traders had neglected to observe prices fixed by the Board, not only in Victoria but in other States. The reason for this neglect may well ́have been unsatisfactory methods of price-fixing, for price regulation is a difficult matter. But to waterside workers and to unionists generally the finding of the Commission. not only "proved" the truth of the allegations of profiteering, but also proved the existence of a far-reaching capitalistic conspiracy" against working-class interests.

66

The tradition of the employers resembles that of the workers in that it also is the outcome of competition and industrial chaos. It was not the average master of the nineteenth century who lived in luxury while his employees went in rags. Competition unrestricted and unscrupulous characterised the industrial field. The prevailing passion was for cheapness, irrespective of cost of production. Scarcities alternated with gluts; bankruptcies were distressingly frequent. The employer was forced by prevalent conditions of trading to consider his own interests or "go under." He had to have absolute control of his business in order to be able immediately to adjust it to meet the changes in external conditions which constantly occurred. Contemporary economic theory justified the belief that labour need only be