Chapter 8 Part Three: The Influence of Democracy on People's Feelings

While the equality of people's status has gradually strengthened with the development of the times, the people's sentiments have become increasingly mild. So, what is the relationship between the two?The two are, it seems to me, intrinsically connected, and that equality of status is the most powerful cause of the transition from brutality to mildness. When the status of people in a country is becoming more and more equal, and their thoughts and feelings are almost the same, people can easily infer other people's psychological activities and feelings from their own personal experience.That is to say, as long as people are good at self-reflection, they will immediately understand and know other people.Therefore, it is easy for people to have the same views and experiences that empathize with certain things.For example, it is not difficult for everyone to discover and understand the suffering of others, because he himself is suffering or has suffered similar suffering, and his compassion comes more from his own reflection and memory of his own suffering.Therefore, it is easy for people to have common sympathy, no one will let others suffer needlessly, and no one will help others to alleviate their pain.Although not everyone will give generously to the weak, they will give him warm and comfortable sympathy.

American egoism has been transformed into a part of sociological and philosophical theory by people, but their compassion is not less for it.In the case of criminal sentencing, no country's criminal courts are more inclined to punish crimes than the United States, which has abolished the death penalty from the criminal code when the British still retained it in criminal legislation. In fact, it is the moderate public sentiment that causes Americans to have such a gentle attitude.The American is very humane to his friends in his position.But once certain people lose their equal status with the majority, Americans stop caring about them.Therefore, their moderate attitude and sentiments should ultimately come from the equality of status they have, not the influence of civilization and education.

Democracy can make the relationship between people simple rather than close.For Americans, neither family origin nor wealth confers any special rights on some of those who benefit from it.No matter what class they came from, whether they were alike or not, they met at will in the same place, and exchanged ideas with each other, neither desiring to benefit from it nor fearing the danger it entailed. Americans are natural, frank and easy-going in their daily life.They don't want to gain benefits from others, and they don't have to worry that others will use something to harm them; they don't deliberately show off their magnificence, and they don't take the initiative to cover up their plight.There is no arrogance in their indifference, nor restraint in their seriousness.They are just expressing their inner self.

After two Americans meet in a foreign country, they will quickly become acquaintances and close friends. This is because of their nationality. They are both Americans. Together.But for two Britons, being from the same country and the same nationality is not enough. Only being from the same class can bring them closer to each other. Americans also have the idea of ​​revenge and revenge, which is no different from other serious and self-respecting peoples.It is not easy for them to forget the offenses that others have done to them.Still, it's not easy to offend Americans, whose anger, while slow to fade, is also slow to build.

They will never be moved by other people's continuous small attentions. This is also a distinctive feature of Americans, because they don't think they deserve these small attentions. Their equal status makes them feel that it is unnecessary to flatter others.The informality and straightforwardness they display are typical masculinity. Every American believes that he should not be particularly concerned about another human being, nor should he be expected to do so, because there is no hierarchy in the social and political spheres of the United States.He doesn't think that being close to others will help his interests, and he will not go against the truth to love him just because others are close to him.He will neither despise anyone because of his different origins, nor will he think of others taking a discriminatory attitude because of his own origin.

Citizens of all classes in the United States can unite for great things because of their democratic political system.They focus on and devote themselves to the main goals and careers of life, and have no leisure to consider those complicated communication etiquette, and they will not destroy the harmony between them if they are informal.Therefore, in their daily interactions, they value the exchange of feelings and ideas rather than their appearance.Even if our behavior seems to be inappropriate, they don't take it seriously, let alone get angry over these trivial matters.In other words, the American democratic and free system, social habits and people's sentiments have cultivated their tolerant character.

But if such Americans landed on European soil, they would be very different, sensitive and irritable.So, what causes these two completely opposite performances?The answer is also the democratic system, social habits and people's sentiments. Americans landed in Europe with arrogance, and they were deeply proud of their country's democratic system.But when we got here, we found out that we didn't treat American democracy in the way they expected, which definitely irritated them.He was even more confused when he saw the unequal status, the traces of the hierarchy, and the privileges of property and birth.He couldn't be calm at all. In order to do it properly, he also tried to follow the red tape, but he either appeared cautious or artificial. He completely lost the simplicity, tolerance and naturalness he had in the United States, and began to become sensitive and irritable. .

Sympathy for misfortune, informal communication, and gentle manners exist among people, all these factors make mutual aid behaviors easy to produce in a democratic society.Not only will the people of the United States not turn a blind eye to the help of their compatriots, but they will be enthusiastic about helping others.While equal status allows them to enjoy independence, it also makes them aware of their cowardly side.The advent of freedom has not eliminated the myriad of unexpected threats, and experience soon makes them realize that while they do not always need help from others, there will be times when it will be necessary.

In fact, there is a kind of tacit agreement among the citizens of democratic countries, just like the spirit of contract in ancient times.Their interest, their sympathy, their apprehension of common weaknesses and dangers, bound them together to a duty to aid each other according to need. So far in human history, there has not been a society where status is completely equal and there is no distinction between poor and low, master and servant.The democratic system does not completely eliminate the existence of the two classes of master and servant, but only changes the relationship between them.

The hierarchical social organization system and the phenomenon that subordinates obey their superiors and servants obey their masters can be seen everywhere in countries with unequal status. The minds of the poor have been trained to be submissive to others since childhood, and servants have always been subordinates. The obedience of the master class.On the one hand, poverty, ignorance, and being sent all his life; on the other hand, wealth, treachery, and commanding. A new type of master and servant was born out of a change in the relationship between the two classes, all due to equality of status.Although the two classes still exist, the members of each class are not static, and they change at any time. Some members of the servant class may enter the master class, and some members of the master class may be reduced to the servant class.At the same time, although members of each class are equal, they are not exactly the same, and do not have exactly the same knowledge, thoughts and feelings.Within each class, there are both honest gentlemen and scoundrels.Since equality has become a recognized social value, it is impossible to deviate from the scope of humanitarianism in the relationship between the two classes.Although the gap between poverty and wealth, command and obedience will expand and highlight the gap between the two from time to time, it will not create a sense of crisis.The powerful moral force possessed by public opinion will eventually adjust the relationship between the two to within the limits of modern civilization.

Therefore, under the democratic system, the deep-rooted sense of hierarchy and difference in the hearts of masters and servants has disappeared. The master is not superior, and the servant will not feel humble.Discrimination and hatred no longer exist, masters are no longer unreasonable, and servants are no longer groveling.In a certain sense, servants are no longer humble, because it is just a temporary occupation chosen by some people.Public opinion will not admit that there is any unequal relationship between the two. In the above content, my discussion of the relationship between master and servant in a democratic system can explain the employment relationship between landlords and tenants under certain conditions. Strictly speaking, there are no tenants in the United States, because everyone is the owner of the land he cultivates.The number of landowners in the United States has been increasing in favorable national circumstances, while the number of tenants has been decreasing.Because of its vast territory and cheap land prices, it is very easy for everyone to become a landlord.It's just that the income from the land is not large, and the output is roughly equal to the investment made by the landlord and the tenant. In my opinion, even in a democratic country, there will still be landlords and tenants in the future, but the relationship between them will be different from that of an aristocratic country and will have new characteristics. In the Middle Ages, people believed that status inequality and society as a whole were immutable, and there was no consciousness in people's minds demanding change.But in the age of equality, people think that nothing lasts forever, change has become their important idea, and their thinking has new content that they want to change.Dominated by this kind of thinking, landlords and tenants have a heartfelt rejection of long-term obligations. They are unwilling to be bound by long-term leases, and they are uneasy and worried about possible changes.Therefore, they always tend to shorten the lease period as far as possible to the foreseeable time, and try to increase the rent as much as possible, in order to obtain early benefits. Now the boundaries of social classes are becoming increasingly blurred in the developing world, the social flow of people between classes is intensifying, the principle of constant wealth and poverty will not be passed on from generation to generation, and the gap between workers and employers is gradually narrowing. In democracies, as in other countries, most of the industry is run by people who are superior in wealth and education to the workers, and these industrialists are not only numerous but also have very different interests, which makes it difficult for them to stand shoulder to shoulder on some issues fight. Workers have become more and more aware of their own rights and future, not only have new hope and confidence, but also continue to put forward new demands on the world.They set their greedy eyes on the high profits of employers, and they are willing to unite and take joint actions in order to improve labor wages. Therefore, in the struggle for wages between these two classes, the interests of workers may gradually gain the upper hand, because the increase in their wages will gradually weaken their dependence on employers and increase their independence, and the increase in independence will It will have a good impact on their further efforts to raise their salaries. In our age, however, the facts presently appearing are quite contrary to this view, and this, I hope, is only a very unfortunate exception. On the one hand, there are very rich people who can start large-scale industries, but there are not many of them, so they can easily work together to set wages, fight side by side, and deal with workers together.On the other hand, the number of workers is increasing day by day, and due to the development of the division of labor, they are dependent on different types of work, and they will not know what to do if they leave their posts.Therefore, their position is very disadvantageous, and they are passive, subject to the arbitrary mercy of their employers.When competition and other contingencies cost employers profits, employers almost always lower wages and pass the loss of profits on to workers.And the workers have nothing to do but succumb to such framing.For if they strike in unison, the rich employers will not be immediately bankrupt, but will be able to wait leisurely while the workers are brought to their knees by poverty.In order not to starve to death, workers who rely on daily labor to make ends meet have no choice but to accept the imposed unfair reality.They are caught in a vicious circle from which they can never escape. Our legislators should pay close attention and heed to the tragic fact that when the whole society is in flux, it is almost impossible to keep a class intact, allowing some people to safely satisfy their unfair and just demands. Needs and desires are also extremely dangerous, and society needs our legislators to guide it back on the right track as soon as possible. What has been said above is my exploration of the impact and role of equality of status in democratic countries, especially in the relationship between citizens of the United States.Next, I would like to go a step further and go deep into the family to discuss how democracy affects the relationship between members of the family. In the American social environment, people only have a sense of family in the first few years of life.Due to their ignorance in childhood, the father's leadership in front of his children is beyond doubt.But after adulthood, people's independence in thought and action makes them gradually liberated from the relationship of obedience to their parents.For Americans, therefore, there is no youth, and as soon as it is over, they begin to pursue their own separate paths in life. On the surface, this may seem like a battle for autonomy within the family, in which the children regain the dominance and autonomy occupied by the father in a way that seems to violate family morality, but this understanding is not true. correct.Because there is no such seemingly fierce power struggle between the two, it is completely a natural transition. What the children have will return to their own independence and autonomy at a certain stage. The cognition of independence and autonomy in the two stages is common, and there is no conflict or inconsistency between the two.Therefore, neither party will feel resentment and pain for this, and they are completely voluntary. What factors lead to such a harmonious relationship between the two?It begins with the far-reaching effects on the family of the social and political revolution that is about to be completed before us. Citizens in a democratic system are equal before political rights and the law, which can directly affect everyone without the need of father as an intermediary.In a legal sense, compared with children, fathers are just older and have more property.The popularization of democratic concepts has made people regard self-reliance as the most basic principle of life. The knowledge, ideas and father's opinions handed down from their ancestors are just a reference, but they are not rules that must be strictly abided by.Therefore, within the family, parents are not the absolute authority in all things, all time, and all power. The relationship between them and their children is not an obedience relationship, but an informal, equal and natural family relationship. Far from harming society, changes in relations among family members have brought some benefits to each citizen.Under the conditions of the growing public sentiment and the legal system, although the relationship between father and son is not as standardized and obedient as in the past, the trust and love between them have become stronger, and their relationship has become increasingly harmonious.Although the democratic system has created interests in inheritance and property between the children of the same family, it has not turned them against each other. On the contrary, their hearts have become more harmonious and harmonious because of the common memory of the past, the sympathy for freedom and hobbies. Brotherhood is deep. The influence of traditional social habits has been gradually eliminated by the democratic system, and now a brand new social habit is being promoted everywhere. It not only does not harm the harmonious relationship among family members, but improves their relationship, but also endows it with the original Gentleness and vitality that are not there.Therefore, although the democratic system loosens the social connection between citizens, it tightens the natural connection between citizens. Young women who grow up in the American environment seldom show cowardice and ignorance like children. Before they reach the age required for marriage, they begin to gradually break away from the guardianship of their mothers and begin to think and act independently.Parents no longer tell them about the grand scenes of life, but let them learn to face the evils and dangers in society correctly through personal experience and observation, and learn not to face society through fantasy.They have to make decisions for themselves at a young age.Although they enjoy all the permissible pleasures of life, they never indulge in them; although they seem to be casual, their reason never allows them to ignore possible dangers. Americans have no qualms about the rights young women have, nor do they have a problem with the way they exercise them.In their view, individual independence is an indispensable principle of a democratic society. Young people should mature as soon as possible, learn to be responsible for themselves as soon as possible, and be able to adapt to possible risks in society and life. Under such circumstances, they are unwilling to suppress the strong feelings in young women, thinking that it is their duty only to teach them how to control them.They are well aware that it is impossible to completely prevent the danger of women's chastity being violated, so they hope to help women establish their awareness of actively defending their chastity, and improve their willpower and defense ability.Not only do they not make women doubt their own incompetence, on the contrary, they constantly find ways to enhance their self-confidence.They cannot and do not want girls to remain completely ignorant for a long time, so they strive to teach them the rudimentary knowledge of dealing with various affairs as early as possible.They also don't think it's a good thing to hide the fact of corruption in the world from girls, but take the initiative to expose corruption to them in order to cultivate their ability to resist corruption. Therefore, in their eyes, instead of paying attention to girls' chastity, it is better to cultivate their correct moral behavior in advance. Once an American woman steps into the palace of marriage, she will permanently lose her autonomy and independence, because after becoming a wife, she bears very heavy responsibilities.Before marriage, she could enjoy full freedom and fun at her parents' house, but after marriage, coming to her husband's house was like entering a monastery.These two situations are not as contradictory as people imagine. It is natural for American women to transition and adapt to different states before and after marriage. What is the reason for this situation?The answer must be found in their people's feelings.Religious and business-minded people have very serious and serious views on marriage.For religious believers, women's obedience in life is the best way to ensure the simplicity of the people, and it is also the best symbol to reflect the simplicity of the people; while for businessmen, women's undertaking many obligations is the most reliable way to ensure the stability and prosperity of the family. Assure.Therefore, it is not difficult for Americans with religious beliefs and business habits to ask their women to learn self-sacrifice, and it is not unreasonable. In a social environment where the above concepts are deeply ingrained, a young woman in the United States grows up slowly. In order for her reputation, peace and social existence not to be destroyed, she can only abide by these constraints rationally.The education she received and her own fortitude helped her adapt to such a society. Therefore, early marriage is absolutely impossible in the United States.Without careful consideration and repeated weighing, before the reason has not been exercised and matured, American women will not get married in a hurry.And women in other countries, they often don't start learning all this until after they get married. Therefore, American women have learned how to be an excellent wife before marriage. Their roles and living habits may change because of marriage, but their attitude and spirit towards life will never change. Certain philosophers and historians have once asserted that the sentiments of women vary according to the distance from the equator where they live, that is, the degree of modesty is in proportion to the distance from the equator.If this is true, then one of the hardest problems in human nature can be solved with just a globe and a compass. Different historical periods, even the same nation, performance is not the same.It may be that chastity was valued at one time, and promiscuity at another.Therefore, the morality of a country depends not only on its geographical location, but on some variable factors, such as social conditions and political systems. All books and periodicals in the United States will portray women as spotless and pure ladies, and no one will make a big deal about the romantic affairs between men and women.This kind of decent public sentiment is of course attributable to the specific national, racial and religious factors in the United States, but this is not the most fundamental reason, because these factors are general reasons and can also explain what happened in other countries.Equality of status and the institutions built on it are the special factors that determine American decency. Women enjoy equality and independence in the United States, so they are free to marry and will not be affected by other factors such as property and background. As long as the men and women have the same hobbies and ideas, they can get close.And the marriage based on the voluntary, mutual appreciation and like-mindedness of both parties is often the strongest and most loyal marriage.Therefore, in a society where everyone is free to choose a spouse and has a correct understanding of marriage obligations, everyone should be responsible for their actions, and public opinion will never tolerate knowingly committed mistakes.Therefore, Americans have a serious attitude towards life. In egalitarian democracies, there are, specifically, two favorable aspects that maintain their decency.One is that the busy life created by equality makes people have no time to indulge in romance.In democracies, men are busy with work and life, and women are running the house all day long, which not only leaves them no time for love affairs, but even gives them a solid reason to avoid love affairs .The second is that the business-oriented and practical thinking habits formed in the democratic era make them unwilling to pursue frenzied passion.Not only are they rigorous and pragmatic, they will not fall into unrealistic fantasies, nor will they pursue strong passions that make life chaotic. What they value is the beauty and stability of life and the depth, seriousness, and sincerity of emotions. Perhaps you have already understood through my above discussion how democracy can eliminate or change various inequalities in life.Next, I would like to discuss the significant impact of democracy on eliminating the inequality between men and women based on natural physiological and human reasons, because the social movement that has broken the concept of superiority and inferiority to create equality is also improving the status of women, so that women are winning Equal status and rights with men. In the eyes of Americans, they firmly believe that when God created men and women, they were physically and mentally different in order to allow them to exert their special advantages according to their different characteristics.Equality between men and women does not mean that people of different genders do the same job, but that men and women can use their abilities to the best of their abilities.They also applied the principle of economic division of labor that guides industrial activities to the equality of men and women, that is, by giving men and women different and detailed responsibilities, so that their respective labors can produce the best results.Although Americans have drawn a clear line of activity between the sexes and charted different paths, they hope and try their best to make both sexes move forward simultaneously.Therefore, you will never see American women doing things other than housework, doing business or entering politics; nor will you see anyone forcing women to go to the fields to do rough work or do heavy work that requires physical strength.No matter how poor a family is, women will not be allowed to break the above rules. Although Americans do not believe that people of different genders should do the same things, they fully agree that people of different genders have equal rights in all aspects and play an equal role in the process of social development.For them, although the destinies of men and women are different, as human beings, the value they have and create is the same.They do not demand that women should use courage as men do, but they never deny that they have similar courage.Although they do not require women to use knowledge and reason like men, they admit that women have the same knowledge and reason as men. Therefore, Americans not only care for women everywhere, keeping them away from danger and fatigue, but also try their best to maintain the same level of men and women in terms of all rights and abilities.Their understanding of the equality of men and women and the progress of democracy in this regard are indeed admirable. Under the influence of democracy on the social and political equality of men, it is inevitable to think that democracy must eventually make all citizens merge in private life and live almost the same life. This understanding of the equality produced by democracy is very arbitrary and very shallow.Because it is impossible for any social conditions and legal system to make people equal so that there is no difference in education, property and hobbies.People don't find quite the same enjoyment in doing the same things that are beneficial to them most of the time, even if they can pull together to do the same thing. In the American environment, people are equal, and no one is allowed to be superior to others.They neither have to obey each other, nor have they to flatter each other.They participate equally in governing the country, enforcing the law, and working together to deal with matters that affect their common destiny.None of them, however, advocated that the recreation should be done in the same manner, nor that men and women should mix indiscriminately in the same places. Although they often meet in political gathering places, and then discuss and act together in the judicial hall, they never completely converge and agree in their private lives.On the contrary, in terms of private life, they choose and divide their own small groups very carefully, and enjoy the fun of private life without interference.Although they recognize the equality of all their compatriots, they regard only a very small number of them as their friends and guests. But in my eyes, this is not worth making a fuss about, on the contrary, it is a very common and natural thing.The larger the circle of public life, the smaller the circle of private relations.This makes the equality and progress of society not for all citizens to completely converge in life, but to allow them to progress freely and comprehensively in their own small circles according to their natural nature. People in a democratic system, although they pursue equality and participate in social and national affairs together, do not want to completely confuse themselves with others. They prefer to form small circles that reflect their own unique characteristics. Everyone tries to rely on this This kind of small circle shuts out people who don't like it, so as not to merge with the crowd. Such a situation will exist and survive with a democratic society.Although people can change the various systems they create, they cannot change the nature of themselves.No matter what methods the society uses to make people move towards equality and homogeneity, human personality will never be wiped out. The arrogance that a person possesses always encourages him to try his best to reflect his own differences and create as much as possible his own uniqueness. Favorable situation and advantage. So no matter how high the degree of equality is, there will always be colorful waves showing different selves in the vast ocean of society. Although a person's appearance is not the most important thing in a person, people always pay more attention to it than everything else.Unless the society as a whole abandons the pursuit of appearance and appearance, people will always show a certain etiquette and behavior in dealing with others.In terms of various factors affecting appearance, the role of social conditions and political conditions is the most worthy of careful study.Appearance is not only a part of people's feelings, but also a kind of social convention.It is both inherited and learned.In democracies there is little restraint, little dignity in appearance, and neither time nor opportunity for it, because of the mundaneness of private life, and the busyness with which men spend most of their time.In particular, as equality has deepened in the social and political spheres, the gaps in people's work and ideas have diminished, while their deeds and words have more and more consistent features.There is no need to deliberately imitate, people can easily have a common language in appearance.But this kind of appearance will not be exactly the same, so that people can't see the difference between people.Therefore, the same social conditions make the appearance gradually uniform, but the independence of personality will not make it completely erase the individual differences of people. The appearance of people in a democratic country may not be as refined as that of an aristocratic country, but it is not vulgar; although it does not have the elegant and gentle speech of the upper class, nor the rough abuse of the lower class; Although it is not as gentle and elegant as aristocrats, nor is it humble and ignorant like ordinary people; although it does not follow the rules, it is plain and sincere.Here, people's appearance is like a layer of natural tulle without decoration, through which people can easily see people's true emotions and distinctive personalities.Although the essence of people it shows is not gorgeous, it is very real. Appearance under a democratic system, in a sense, does not require people to have a certain form, but tries to prevent people from showing a certain form.One day, it will become clear to us that a man with vulgar feelings always makes himself look good, and a man who is mean at heart always secretly puts on a lot of make-up and looks sanctimonious.Therefore, people need appearance, but they don't need to embellish false virtue.The gorgeous and hypocritical appearance often gives people the illusion of beauty and nobility. Appearance under a democratic system is to show people's true inner world as much as possible, so that the outside and the inside are the same. Although temperament has a profound effect on the character of Americans, I think political system has an even more significant effect on their character.Their self-esteem is the reason for their rigorous spirit.They attach great importance to the value of personality, not only respecting others themselves, but also asking others to respect themselves.Therefore, Americans are very cautious in their words and deeds, and will never act recklessly and expose their shortcomings.In their view, self-respect and seriousness are important prerequisites for winning the respect of others. However, although the rigorous spirit is unique to Americans and has gradually become a national habit, Americans often remain calm and steady in their lives, but they still fail to achieve effective self-restraint, and often surpass them due to whims and rashness. Rational boundaries, to do incredible things. What is the reason for this contradiction?This is mainly determined by the social conditions peculiar to democratic countries.In the United States, people never stay in one place for a long time. They have many opportunities to move constantly. Their lives are always interrupted by a series of sudden events, so it is very easy to fall into continuous change. .This makes it difficult for them to thoroughly learn or learn one thing well, it is difficult for them to persevere in long-term work, and they even start to learn to speak before they fully understand the meaning of a sentence.They are eager to get everything and do everything, but they often try to stop and never delve into it.Their never-ending curiosity often requires them to just know more things as soon as possible, rather than to deeply understand and study these things.They have neither the time nor the interest to delve into things. So, the social and political conditions of the democratic system have given Americans more opportunities to participate than ever before. They need to devote themselves to doing everything well, and they need to be rigorous and prudent.However, their time is tight and their tasks are numerous, and it is often difficult for them to concentrate and do every job well for a long time. They can only think a little and act rashly. All people who enjoy liberty are proud of their freedom, but the pride takes different forms.Americans have a particularly haughty and frivolous pride in this respect.When they are with foreigners, they always feel that foreigners give them too little praise, especially they cannot tolerate even very slight criticism.They are very happy that you can flatter them, praise them, and constantly pester you for it.If you ignore it, they'll turn to self-praise. What is the reason for this?Basically, it is because they are not confident in their own advantages.Because I am afraid of being questioned by others, I especially hope to be appreciated by others face to face.Their national pride is not only greedy, but extremely pompous and frivolous. At the same time, the fluidity that characterizes democracies makes their grandiosity and frivolity all the more unbridled.The instability of the social environment makes people's conditions constantly changing, so their advantages are constantly developing, which makes them constantly chattering to show off their strengths.In addition, this advantage may be lost at any time, so they are always anxious, lest others will not see and believe their advantage. 在美国社会中，这不仅仅是一个人或者一部分人的表现，而是整个民族都如此，他们个人的轻浮心已经转变成了整个民族的自负心。 在美国，持续改变着的有人们的思想、命运和国家的法律。但是，这种改变却有着共同的面貌和特点，结果就是这种改变不仅显得单调，而且会让人日久生厌。 美国人从事基本相同的工作，人们都是平等的。虽然他们会随着社会的巨大变化而沉浮不定，但他们所重复经历的成功和失败是千篇一律的，剧情一直是这样，只是演员的名字不断变换。而整个社会面貌虽然也是千变万化的，但它基本上遵照着一种模式，表现得特别一致和单调。 生活中的美国人激情满满，可是这种激情基本上都以爱财为表现形式。这不是因为他们天生精神境界就不高，而是金钱对于他们来说作用太大。在美国，以尊重古代、恪守传统而树立起来的权威已经不复存在，也不再以出身、地位和职业来作为区分、评判人的根本标准，只有金钱在不断地制造着人们之间的显著差别，它几乎成了区分人的唯一标准。 所以美国人行动的主要动机是追求财富，这是必然的，这就让他们的一切激情都深深地打上了爱财的烙印。 但是尽管美国人具有爱财之心，但美国人却不能依靠战争、假公济私或运用政治手段没收他人财产的办法使自己发财，所以这使得他们几乎全部投身工商业之中。而搞好工商业需要有整齐划一、训练有素的经营方法，需要有条不紊，否则是无法让工商业繁荣的。因此虽然他们个个都是工商业者，从事的也并非完全相同的行业，但却都表现出自然的一致和规范。这也使得他们的社会面貌相同而单调，尽管外表看起来五彩缤纷。 一套具有普遍意义的道德规范对于人类来说是必要的，这种道德规范不仅适用于任何时代、任何人，而且还能在他们违反时，对他们产生斥责和耻笑，因而使得人们一般都不敢违反。按照这种道德规范，违反它的规定的就称为作恶，遵守它的规定的就称为向善。 如果整个人类是一个大的团体，那么国家和民族就是这个大团体里范围较小的团体，而在这一小团体内部，还有更微弱的团体——阶级和等级。阶级性的小团体虽然与整个人类群体并没有质的区别，但在其范围内却是独立的存在的，并有自身的特殊的需要。这些特殊的需要在不同国家又有着具体的内容和表现形式，而根据这些更为特殊的内容和形式，人们又各自产生了不同的评判人们行为的道德规范。 就整个人类的普遍利益来说，人们不应当陷于彼此残杀，这是违反人类道德的事情。然而，对某个国家或阶级特殊的、短暂的利益而言，在某些情况下杀人却是值得原谅的，甚至是应当表扬的。 所以说，所谓荣誉，就是依据一种特殊情况建立的供一个国家或阶级用来褒贬人们行为的特殊标准。美国人无法抗拒地走上了工商业道路，这得益于身份平等、民主制度和民情，现在的美国社会就是一个在广阔无垠的新国土上建立的、以开发为主要目的、以经营工商业为主要活动的社会。这是美国人与其他国家的人民相比所具有的最大的特点。在这样的社会，只要是能有助于工商业稳定发展的德行都会受到人们的特别尊重，而忽略这些德行将会受到人们的鄙视。与此同时，一切给社会带来动荡、阻碍社会正常发展的德行，人们都会对其谴责。所有对这些德行无视的人，都会得不偿失的。 除了以上提到的有利于社会和工商业稳定发展的基本德行外，美国人还有一些建立在他们特殊的社会环境、民情基础之上的德行。这些德行有些可能与整个人类的道德伦理不一致，但却符合美国人特殊和暂时的需要。他们主要是：爱财、冒险、纯洁、勇敢和劳动。 爱财：富饶而辽阔的国土是美国的优越条件之一，为了开垦、耕耘和改造这片人烟稀少的国土，美国人必须要有坚韧不拔的爱财之心作为支撑。爱财在美国不但不失体面，只要在法律规定的界限内，它还是光彩的。对于中世纪的欧洲人而言，爱财往往会与卑鄙可耻的贪欲联系在一起，在美国却是值得赞美的高尚雄心。而我们的这些先人所尊敬的战斗中的征服热情和好战精神，美国人却视之为盲目的野蛮的暴虐。 冒险：财产损失对美国人来说，并不可怕，这要得益于他们辽阔的国土蕴藏着取之不竭的资源，到处是尚未开发的财富，只要不怕冒险，肯于追求，损失的财产总会得到弥补的。他们在工商业活动中总会表现出突出的大胆和冒险精神，而这也是他们迅速发展、国力强大的主要原因。所以在经营中所表现出的冒险精神深受美国人的青睐和尊重，他们对于因冒险而破产倒闭的商人也有着特别的宽容，却对于那些不愿意冒险的人嗤之以鼻。 纯洁：美国人极度不能容忍那些败坏纯朴民风和破坏婚姻的一切劣行，舆论往往会大加鞭笞那些破坏家庭关系稳定的伤风败俗行为。他们在这些方面的严肃使得美国人都不得不去服从这些通行习惯，以至于做一个纯洁无瑕的人成了他们最好的荣誉寄托。 勇敢：在美国人心目中，勇敢就是不畏海洋的惊涛而早日抵达港口，对在追求财富的途中忍受穿越荒漠的艰苦和独自奋斗的孤寂毫无怨言。他们不会被辛辛苦苦积攒的财产顷刻间荡然无存而击倒，他们内心无所畏惧的英雄气概会让他们以新的努力去积累新的财产。这种精神对于维持和繁荣美国社会是必不可少的，因此广受人们的尊重和推崇。人们藐视那些缺乏勇气的胆小鬼。 劳动：与其说在美国保障生活的是财产，不如说是劳动，因为美国的劳动让人得到梦想的一切。人人尊重劳动、参加劳动，不耻那些游手好闲人。可以说，尊重劳动是美国人最根本的荣誉观。 在这个人们的身份日益平等，阶级日渐融合的社会中，一个国家的国民之间的利益和观点的差异逐渐缩小，被每个阶级用来评定荣辱的特殊的荣誉观也将逐渐变得统一。甚至可以说，荣誉观本身也将随着差异和不平等的消逝而消失于无形之中。 美国社会中，有两件事情会引起特别的注意：一是人们大都希望不断改善自己的现有条件；二是在普遍追求上进的人们中缺乏那些拥有宏伟志向的人。 尽管美国很少有庸庸碌碌的人，但也少见壮志凌云者；尽管都追求财富、名望和权势，但却很少投身于伟大事业。这让人感到奇怪，因为美国的民情和法制既没有限制人们的欲望，也没有阻止人们向各方面发展。若是归咎于身份平等，则更说不通，因为平等在法国出现之后立即催生了人们几乎没有止境的野心。但是在经过深入的考察后，我还是认为造成这种矛盾的主要原因，是美国的民情和社会情况。 身份平等带来的，不只是让每个公民拥有一定数量的财产，还对每个公民拥有巨额财产产生阻碍。这给人们的欲望规定的空间是有限的。虽然奋进之心是人人都有的热烈而持久的情感，但它却不能让人产生太高的目标，只是让人不断地追求着可能被实现的小目标。 详细地说，解释为什么美国人少有大志可以给出以下两个原因。第一个原因是太多平凡的事情占用了他们有可能去做重大事情的精力。美国人每天都奔忙于激烈的致富经营活动中，他们必须要竭尽全力把经营中接连不断产生的大量琐事处理好，他们的精力和视野完全被这些平凡的琐事所拖住，这些小事不但在限制着他们的视野，也在束缚着他们的能力，使得他们已无力、无暇再去扩大自己的胸怀了。 出身名门的一大好处就是让一个人在18岁或20岁时即可达到普通人在50岁时才达到的地步，让他平添30年的人生重要时光，这是帕斯卡尔曾说过的话。对于民主国家的普通人来说，他必须要花费30年的时间来做必须做的小事，而当他在30年后具备做大事的条件时，他也几乎已天年已尽，英雄暮年，失去兴致了。 第二个原因，就是取得非凡成功的希望过于渺茫，这大大降低了更多的人做大事的决心。尽管民主社会里成就大事的大门是向所有的公民均衡地敞开着的，但终究只能有寥寥数人才能幸运地取得成功。大多数人尚未到达终点，就已在看似公平的竞赛途中耗尽了自己宝贵的生命。 等待的漫长和屡屡失败的现象，最终让人们明白了这一切。他们知道，虽然他们有不受限制的发展空间，但要想实现最终的远大目标，必须要翻越无数个小障碍，而这一过程又是那么的长，导致他们望而却步，主动打消了制定宏伟志向的念头。他们的志气和信心已被严酷的现实挫败了。他们自己给自己缩小了目标，只去寻找那些离他们近的并且能够实现的成功去了。 具有一定知识和金钱之后，美国人一般会去经营工商业以便发财致富，或者买上一块荒地来开垦谋生。对于政府，他希望它不要干扰他的正常劳动，并为他获得的劳动成果提供保护。 当一些民主国家提供的公职岗位不多、待遇也不太好且稳定性差，但是经营工商业的机会很多并且有钱可赚的时候，人们往往会选择去从事工商业工作，却不去做政府部门的工作。 在其他民主国家里，当从事公职成为人们出头露面的唯一途径时，人们必会去选择竞选或担任公职。可是国家所需要的公职人员的数量是有一定限制的，不可能让所有想担任公职的人都如愿，这样就会在二者之间产生必然的矛盾。全世界所有人当中最难以控制和驾驭的群体就是待业求职的人，尤其对于不断增多的追求官职的求职者，政府更加难以完全满足他们的愿望。所以，必须要提防这些人为了达到自己的目的，而做出有可能危害国家和政府稳定与正常运转的举动。 总之，那些面对大量追求官职的人而采取退让或满足他们要求的现代统治者，最后必然会悔恨于自己的那些短视做法。因为对于解决就业问题来说，最稳妥最有效的办法，应当是培养、提高求职者自我创业和自力更生的能力。 对于那些生活在民主制度下的人们来说，不仅不希望有革命，还害怕产生革命。因为任何革命都会或多或少地带来利益的亏损。民主国家里的人大都拥有自己的财产，人们也都十分尊重彼此对私有财产的所有权。 下面我就具体说明一下民主国家里各个阶层的人对待革命的态度。对于那些穷人来说，他们一般不太关心自己所拥有的财富，因为这些财物太少了，拥有少量财物和一点没有差别并不明显。对于富人来说，财富几乎已经满足了他们所有的需求，他们已没有什么狂热的激情要通过革命的方式来获取了。只有介于两者之间的中产阶级，对自己的财产甚为重视。因为正是这点财产让他们脱离了贫穷和痛苦，他们把自己所有的希望都寄托在这点家产上了。他们对于自己的财产不仅关心而且有所顾虑，他们夜以继日地在努力使家产不断增加，失去所有家产对于他们来说，是最大的灾难，他们反对革命的态度最为坚决。 总之，除了一部分穷人外，大多数的公民是不愿意革命的。因为他们不但看不到革命会对他们有什么好处，还要时刻提防革命所产生的灾难。尤其对于拥有大量动产的人来说，更是害怕因为革命而失去自己的一切财产。由此可见，一个国家人们拥有的动产数量越大、种类越多，就越不容易发生革命。除了以上的因素，民主国家特有的民情也在阻止着革命的发生。在民主国家，每个人都在忙于执行以实现自己的安乐为目的的人生计划，都在费尽精力操持着自家的琐碎小事，实在没有精力、时间和兴趣去考虑类似革命这样影响重大的大事。关注那些小事情，不仅让他们漠视了大事情，也使他们革命的念头打消了。 在美国人的眼里，万一公众的骚动有可能对社会构成威胁时，公众的激情有可能超出可控的范围，大多数人会选择停止下来冷静地面对。他们不但害怕革命，厌恶革命，还时刻在准备着防止革命。 那些使民主国家的人们反对革命的因素，也使他们拒绝接受战争的洗礼。拥有财产的人数的不断增加，财产数量的增多，纯朴的民情，对和平的爱好，怜悯心，冷静和理智——所有这些因素，减弱了尚武精神的增长。随着身份平等的日益发展，好战的激情在民主国家将会越来越少、越来越弱，这是一个带有普遍性的规律。 对于所有国家来说，战争都是不幸的事情，所以为了维护和平，即使再厌恶战争，每个国家都会随时做好应敌的准备，军队对任何国家来说都是必不可少的。美国不但没有取消军队，而且它的身份平等、民情和民主制度还对它的军队产生着极大的影响。 在民主国家的军队里，即使是普通士兵也有可能升任军官，所以每个人都会有晋升的想法，这就自然会滋长不受限制的军事野心。而军官就更想继续晋升了，社会总是以他们在军队中的军阶来评价他们，每升一个军阶对他们来说意味着拥有了更大的价值。 所以这些军队里普遍都具有晋升的愿望。但是对于这些军人来说，军阶在和平时期是晋升得最慢的。再加上军职有限，而竞争者又到处存在，这就让很多人无法晋升。因此，想晋升的军官都渴望发生战争，以便有军职空缺，让他们有更多的晋升机会。 虽然，民主国家的人民是最爱和平的，但是他们的军队却是所有军队中最热烈希望发生战争的。这种极其矛盾的现象，皆是由平等造成的。 民主时代，很少有人愿意参军。所以民主国家在实行自愿入伍的募兵制一段时间以后，不得不放弃了这一制度，将征兵制度改为强制入伍。在征兵制下，由于全体公民人人都要服兵役，所以每个人在军队里的服役期都很短。因此，士兵往往成了军队里的过客。 某些人可能比较喜欢战争的感觉，可是大多数人都是被迫来到军队的，他们时刻都想早点回到故乡。这些人从军只是应付差事，没有什么职业军人所特有的奢望，他们心里总是惦念着社会生活里的利益和欲望。他们不仅没有尚武精神，反而还把社会生活里的公民精神带进了军队并保持着这种精神，他们仍保留着公民的本质。这些军队里的军官们与普通军人相比，却有着与全国人民和普通士兵完全不同的爱好和欲望。当一个人变成军官之后，他便完全脱离了与公民生活的关系，而且也没有兴趣再回到公民生活中。军队成了他最终的归宿，他的一切都取决于它的军阶。他的命运和军队的命运紧密相连，他的所有希望都寄托在军队身上。他得跟着军队共进退、同浮沉。由于军官们的需要与全国人民的需要是不同的，他们有可能在人们普遍希望安定和平的时候蓄意制造战争或发动革命。 长期和平之后，参战的军队一般都会很容易失败，而经常作战的军队却有很大机会获胜。这一规律特别适用于民主国家的军队。因为在民主国家，民族的精英一般都不会选择军职，而是通过其他途径去谋求荣誉和权力，尤其是财富。和平条件一旦长期下去，军队的军事水平将会逐渐下降，从而危及到军队和国家。 军队的军官和指挥人员已经几乎老迈不堪，他们缺乏参战所必需的精力；士兵则往往缺乏经验，不太了解战争。再加上民主与和平的民情让军人在身心方面变得不适合认真作战：温文尔雅是不可能胜任血腥的、艰苦的战斗任务的。因此，民主国家在经历长期和平之后参加战争，在战争初期被打败的可能性要远远大于其他国家。 不过，如果它们把战争拖入相持阶段并且不因为败北或艰苦而很快气馁，那么它们的军队取得最终胜利的机会将增加。这是因为一旦战争时间拖长，全体公民不能再集中精力和平劳动，做他们自己的事情时，他们就会把所有的精力和激情转向支持战争。战争在把所有的事业破坏掉以后，它本身就成了整个国家和民族独一无二的大事业。人民纷纷拿起武器，奔赴战场。他们的军队取得最终获胜便不难理解了。 所以民主国家人民的利益和爱好让他们远离了战争，但他们特有的思维习惯却往往能让他们把战争打好。只要能把他们的精力和才智从他们的事业和舒适的生活的圈子里转移到战争上，他们很容易就会成为优秀的军人的。 有一种很流行的观点认为，在民主国家处于主导地位的社会平等会让士兵不再听军官的指挥，从而破坏军队里的纪律。 这种观点，与事实是不符合的。民主国家的军队中，纪律并没有试图制止平等精神的自由发展，而是去设法引导平等精神的自由发展。虽然对于其的规定不是很周密，但却简单明了。它约束的服从是以服从者的意志为基础的，它把服从者的本能情感与理智很好地统一了起来。尤其当危险使服从成为必要时，服从者会自发地选择服从。所以在民主国家军队里，纪律越是在大敌当前越是会自动加强。每一个士兵都明白，只有严格服从才能确保他们取胜。 在平等的原则超越了国界的限制，并且快速扩展到相邻的更多国家时，爱好和平、惧怕战争的人便会层出不穷。他们的爱好逐渐变得统一，因工商业而互相联系产生的利益也日趋紧密。战争无论是对于发起国还是被迫参战国，无论是战胜国还是战败国，都是灾难性的，任何国家都不可能因为战争而得到好处。在民主时代，把各国都拉进战争和只让两个国家交战而不牵涉其他国家几乎都是不可能的。也就是说，要么没有战争，要么就是所有国家之间的战争。 民主国家的富强和众多的人口成为发动战争的极为优秀的条件，可是，一旦敌人深入它的国土，它就几乎失去了防御能力。往往一个国家的首都被攻占之后，这个国家就成了亡国。原因显而易见：民主国家里的公民都是各自孤立的，不但软弱而无力自卫，也无力支援他人。在民主国家里，国家的力量强大，但一旦其军事力量被击溃，行政力量因失去首都而陷入瘫痪，剩下的就只是没有组织、没有力量的孤立的个人了，他们是不能抵抗有组织的入侵力量的。 我上面所阐述的关于民主国家间战争的特点也符合这些国家的内战。在民主国家，人们天生就不喜欢尚武精神，更不愿意因内战而破坏自己的生活。因此，一般情况下，民主国家是不会发生内战的。 然而一旦想以战争的方式在这些国家实现革命的任务，也只有一个办法，那就是出其不意地迅速占领政府的全部机关。如果不是这样，让内战得以持续，则总是代表政府的一方会最终取得胜利。因此，平等时代里，内战要么非常稀少，要么爆发之后就迅即结束，这应该也是一个带有规律性的普遍真理。