DOES REFINEMENT KILL INDIVIDUALITY?
Is it true that cultivation, what
we call refinement, kills individuality? Or,
worse than that even, that one loses his taste by
over-cultivation? Those persons are uninteresting,
certainly, who have gone so far in culture that they
accept conventional standards supposed to be correct,
to which they refer everything, and by which they measure
everybody. Taste usually implies a sort of selection;
the cultivated taste of which we speak is merely a
comparison, no longer an individual preference or
appreciation, but only a reference to the conventional
and accepted standard. When a man or woman has
reached this stage of propriety we are never curious
any more concerning their opinions on any subject.
We know that the opinions expressed will not be theirs,
evolved out of their own feeling, but that they will
be the cut-and-dried results of conventionality.
It is doubtless a great comfort to
a person to know exactly how to feel and what to say
in every new contingency, but whether the zest of life
is not dulled by this ability is a grave question,
for it leaves no room for surprise and little for
emotion. O ye belles of Newport and of Bar Harbor,
in your correct and conventional agreement of what
is proper and agreeable, are you wasting your sweet
lives by rule? Is your compact, graceful, orderly
society liable to be monotonous in its gay repetition
of the same thing week after week? Is there nothing
outside of that envied circle which you make so brilliant?
Is the Atlantic shore the only coast where beauty
may lounge and spread its net of enchantment?
The Atlantic shore and Europe? Perhaps on the
Pacific you might come back to your original selves,
and find again that freedom and that charm of individuality
that are so attractive. Some sparkling summer
morning, if you chanced to drive four-in-hand along
the broad beach at Santa Barbara, inhaling, the spicy
breeze from the Sandwich Islands, along the curved
shore where the blue of the sea and the purple of the
mountains remind you of the Sorrentine promontory,
and then dashed away into the canon of Montecito,
among the vineyards and orange orchards and live-oaks
and palms, in vales and hills all ablaze with roses
and flowers of the garden and the hothouse, which
bloom the year round in the gracious sea-air, would
you not, we wonder, come to yourselves in the sense
of a new life where it is good form to be enthusiastic
and not disgraceful to be surprised? It is a
far cry from Newport to Santa Barbara, and a whole
world of new sensations lies on the way, experiences
for which you will have no formula of experience.
To take the journey is perhaps too heroic treatment
for the disease of conformity the sort of
malaria of our exclusive civilization.
The Drawer is not urging this journey,
nor any break-up of the social order, for it knows
how painful a return to individuality may be.
It is easier to go on in the subordination of one’s
personality to the strictly conventional life.
It expects rather to record a continually perfected
machinery, a life in which not only speech but ideas
are brought into rule. We have had something
to say occasionally of the art of conversation, which
is in danger of being lost in the confused babel of
the reception and the chatter of the dinner-party the
art of listening and the art of talking both being
lost. Society is taking alarm at this, and the
women as usual are leaders in a reform. Already,
by reason of clubs-literary, scientific, economic woman
is the well-informed part of our society. In
the “Conversation Lunch” this information
is now brought into use. The lunch, and perhaps
the dinner, will no longer be the occasion of satisfying
the appetite or of gossip, but of improving talk.
The giver of the lunch will furnish the topic of conversation.
Two persons may not speak at once; two persons may
not talk with each other; all talk is to be general
and on the topic assigned, and while one is speaking,
the others must listen. Perhaps each lady on taking
her seat may find in her napkin a written slip of
paper which shall be the guide to her remarks.
Thus no time is to be wasted on frivolous topics.
The ordinary natural flow of rejoinder and repartee,
the swirling of talk around one obstacle and another,
its winding and rippling here and there as individual
whim suggests, will not be allowed, but all will be
improving, and tend to that general culture of which
we have been speaking. The ladies’ lunch
is not to be exactly a debating society, but an open
occasion for the delivery of matured thought and the
acquisition of information.
The object is not to talk each other
down, but to improve the mind, which, unguided, is
apt to get frivolous at the convivial board. It
is notorious that men by themselves at lunch or dinner
usually shun grave topics and indulge in persiflage,
and even descend to talk about wine and the made dishes.
The women’s lunch of this summer takes higher
ground. It will give Mr. Browning his final estimate;
it will settle Mr. Ibsen; it will determine the suffrage
question; it will adjudicate between the total abstainers
and the halfway covenant of high license; it will not
hesitate to cut down the tariff.
The Drawer anticipates a period of
repose in all our feverish social life. We shall
live more by rule and less by impulse. When we
meet we shall talk on set topics, determined beforehand.
By this concentration we shall be able as one man
or one woman to reach the human limit of cultivation,
and get rid of all the aberrations of individual assertion
and feeling. By studying together in clubs, by
conversing in monotone and by rule, by thinking the
same things and exchanging ideas until we have none
left, we shall come into that social placidity which
is one dream of the nationalists one long
step towards what may be called a prairie mental condition the
slope of Kansas, where those who are five thousand
feet above the sea-level seem to be no higher than
those who dwell in the Missouri Valley.