dictate a costume that will exaggerate the defects and conceal the beauties of a society leader possessing unimpeachable personal taste. Likewise a housekeeper may have a sane natural taste in furniture and household decoration and yet follow a crude fad in her own home. A painter may have sound ideas of art, a writer a sound appreciation of literature, or a musician a sound love of music, and each of them follow some fantastic school into artistic absurdities. Individualistic taste in itself is not an adequate defense against the tyranny of fashion, fad, style, and conventionality. If education is to render effective aid in developing aesthetic sanity it must be social enough to provide constant group training where diverging ideals clash in a struggle for survival bitter enough to produce compromise. Aesthetic progress demands freedom for exercising individual taste, which can only be brought about in the atmosphere of friendly criticism and artistic tolerance.

Moreover, social welfare demands a social use of aesthetic taste and artistic appreciation. Civic art must have sponsors, public libraries must have promoters, and community music must have leaders. In a crowded world everyone with an artistic accomplishment is needed in social capacities. Where each one's work is narrow and specialized and often burdened with drudgery it is necessary to have public entertainment, social diversion, and mutual cultural inspiration. Yet many devotees of art are unsocial or selfishly exclusive. A painter may hoard his treasures, a potential literary master may lack the social incentive to write, or an exquisite violinist may refuse to share his musical joys with others. If one's artistic impulses are literary he should aid in spreading the reading habit by supporting the agencies of free literature, such as free textbooks, generous school and public libraries, and endowed magazines and literary foundations. If one's taste leans to the color and plastic arts he should strive, not merely to surround himself with objects of art, but also to be a patron of the public gallery and a worker for the civic uses of art. If one's artistic preference is for music and the drama he should lend a helping hand to the cause of more and better musical and dramatic performances. One of the most hopeful movements of the age is the increasing tendency of men of wealth to share their art treasures with the public and to

establish endowments for the democratization of the fine arts. But the development of artistic appreciation and knowledge must not be dependent upon the chance gifts of philanthropists; it must in a cultivated society be a part of public policy. It is no less a function of education to give this social direction to the spread of the fine arts than it is to produce individual artists.

As the possession of personal taste is no guaranty of artistic social service, so the possession of refined manners and individual self-control is no proof of refined public attitudes and social selfcontrol. Men with personal refinement will indulge in disgraceful church rows and indecently partisan political harangues. Wendell Phillips had more personal culture than Abraham Lincoln, but he lacked Lincoln's refinement of public speech and his social sanity. Also it is a well-advertized fact that a group of people will be guilty of a social muckerism far beneath the approval of the average individual within the group. This is evidenced by the mob at a lynching, the bleacher gang at a baseball or football game, the hecklers at a political rally, and the fanatics at a heresy trial. Cultivated people with individual self-control will be led into excesses at a social celebration, and well-bred people will follow crude marriage and funeral customs and indulge in indiscriminate birthday and Christmas giving. No amount of individual selfcontrol will stop a panic in an army or a financial crisis. In other words, social self-control, or self-control under social pressure, is a somewhat different thing from individual self-control, and its development demands a different type of training.

Likewise social morals are separate from, and supplementary to, individual morals. Some men with personal honesty do not hesitate to engage in an essentially dishonest business. Others who would not think of committing murder will deliberately make and sell poisoned drugs or adulterated foods. The ordinary man with plenty of public spirit will fail to aid justice by informing public officers of violations of the law, and a group of reputable business men will knowingly overvalue a bit of personal property taken under the law of eminent domain by their city or the state. In a similar way a social organization composed of honest individuals will fail to pay its debts, a church may stoop to gambling devices

to raise money, a political party composed of patriotic citizens will defraud the public, and a group of sincere reformers will override the rights of large bodies of citizens. Dr. Ross has well shown that the great sins of the day are the result of the lack of a social conscience that will sense the indirect consequences of personal acts and carry over personal morals into social morals.

If the facts in the foregoing analysis show that personal culture and social culture are not identical and that an individual may possess the one and not the other, it is worth while to inquire how they may both be developed. In our present society education is the basis of culture. If that education is individualistic we may expect an individualistic culture. Only a social education where group ideals of art and conduct and morals are emphasized can result in social culture. Artistic breadth of view cannot be expected to result from the present method of tutorial instruction in the fine arts; some form of school instruction where free criticism and group rivalry are constant factors must be devised before artists. will ever become as liberal toward the work of other artists as ordinary public-school and collegiate students are toward each other's efforts. Self-control under group pressure will never be established until people are trained to react sanely toward social suggestions from their youth up. A public morality that will approach private morality in effectiveness must wait for a school training which will call for constant moral decisions in self-determining groups.

SOCIAL ASPECTS OF VOCATIONAL EFFICIENCY

The third of our educational objectives, vocational efficiency, is also usually thought of from the individualistic standpoint. The purpose of vocational education as ordinarily expressed is to enable the individual to increase his income or to enable him to make a better living for himself and his family. But such a view shows a narrow vision. In our highly organized industrial society economic rewards are reciprocal. The income of an individual in any particular occupation depends in the long run upon the prosperity of his economic group, or even of the whole economic fabric of which his occupation forms only a part. Individual income is no more important than social income, and from the larger viewpoint the

wage of a particular laborer or occupation group is no more vital a concern of the vocational educator than the general wage scale or the proper direction and control of vocational effort. That every occupation has its social as well as its individual aspect may be made evident by specific applications.

Capital is the result of surplus effort and saving. The enormous increase in the productive power of the individual laborer of the present over the laborer of the past is due quite largely to accumulated supplies of capital goods with which he may work. This supply of productive capital has been built up largely because each worker in a useful occupation produces an economic surplus. It is the sum total of individual production that creates the social dividend which in the long run, in spite of a crude system of distribution, somehow accrues to the advantage of all workers. Productive agencies are so bound together in reciprocal service that whatever an individual adds to the total benefits not only himself but others as well.

There is also a reverse side to the record. If a vocation be nonproductive or individually and socially injurious the whole economic fabric is weakened. A business failure is not merely an individual calamity—it is a social calamity. Any large percentage of business failures discourages industry and undermines general prosperity. The bungler or the slacker in his work not only lowers his own income, but casts discredit on his occupation, injures his fellowlaborers, and weakens the productive capacity of allied industries. Even more do the parasite and exploiter undermine general economic efficiency. An occupation may return individual profits and be honestly managed, but may in itself be destructive. The divekeeper, the bucket-shop manager, and the sinecure office-holder are examples. Any sort of vocational efficiency must tend to eliminate such occupations. Moreover, most vocations have certain elements of hypocrisy and graft that need to be curbed. Good lawyers stimulate doubtful litigation, excellent physicians encourage useless calls, reputable ministers preach insincere sermons, efficient manufacturers produce worthless goods, honest real-estate dealers foster false booms, conscientious artisans conceal faulty workmanship, and energetic day-laborers kill time. None of these things is more

individually culpable than socially harmful, yet the general condemnation of such practices imputes the whole guilt to the individual who indulges in them instead of sharing it with the community which endures them. If a cure is to be effected it must come as much through a change in the social attitude toward work as through improvement in the individual attitude. Social motives must be made to reinforce individual motives.

Another phase of vocational efficiency is seen in the necessity, under our latter-day methods of conducting business, of securing a spirit of ready co-operation in the worker. A high grade of efficiency demands that one be, not merely efficient in his own special field, but able to co-ordinate his work with that of his fellows. This requires an intelligence which can comprehend the whole process if it be in manufacturing, or the whole business if it be retail merchandising, or the whole institution if it be a profession. It further requires more than individual adaptability; it demands a willingness to sacrifice certain self-ends to the needs of group or social ends. If labor organization is to benefit labor as a whole, not only must the individual workman join it, but he must own an allegiance that will reach beyond his special occupational union into the larger federations. If laborers and capitalists are to adjust their differences in an economical way each must understand the cause of the other, both must recognize the rights of the public, and all three must unite in a compromise that will establish an economic equilibrium. The business man must be both able and willing to co-operate with his fellows in establishing closing hours, trade conditions, and business standards. Professional men must establish and obey a system of professional ethics and co-operate in advancing technical knowledge. In fact, mutual dependence is so dominant a factor in present civilization that the co-operative spirit has become a cornerstone of our economic structure, and any effort to produce vocational efficiency that ignores its development is a

menace.

That we are beginning to recognize the social aspects of vocational training is quite evident in professional education. The minister is trained, not merely to look after the interests and increase the size of his flock, but to labor for the upbuilding of the