The record. [volume] (St. Maries, Idaho) 1913-1918, 1917-11-27
JUST HUMAN BEINGS

Heredity environment, educa- |
ton, station in life, and assOcia- !
tions all serve TO dinerenliate I
men from one another. There is |
never a campaign in which we |
do not hear much of the labor |
vote. Yet experience has proved |
quite conclusively that there is
no such thing. Laboring men
are Republicans or Democrats,
much as other men are. Not
only so, but each man is subject
to influences peculiar to himself.
He wants protection for his fam
lily, good schools for his children,
low taxes and good government
exactly as other men do. The
very fact that men are alike as
being all human beings is Of it.
self proof that they are different.
BY that it is meant that it is
human nature for each man to
seek his own good. Necessarily
each seeks it in a different way
Therefore, the things that bind
men together are the very things
that make them differ.
So it is that men OF one class
combine with men of other
classes to get what they think to
be best for themselves. This is
but one illustration of many il
Illustrations that might be given.
II is human nature for a man TO
act in such a way as seems most
likely to serve his own interests.
But as the interests of men diff
fer, so their thoughts and actions
differ. Men are exactly alike in
desiring the best for themselves
and their families-that is hui
man nature. But they differ
widely in their ideas as to what
is best, and as to the proper
methods to achieve it. So the
differences between men are born
out of the very likenesses be-
tween them. They have a com
mon humanity, but that human
ity expresses itself in different
ways, and seeks widely different
ends. 1t is hardly possible to
exaggerate the Importance of
personality and individuality.
Probably no two men would act
in precisely the same way under
the same circumstances. 1t is
impossible to standardize hui
manity, since humanity, by its
very nature, involves and implies
differences, and often of the
most radical nature.
The fallacy under discussion
vitiates much of our literary and
dramatic criticism. 1t is as
sumed that all men under Ger
tain conditions would act in the
same way. No theory could be
more false. Sometimes it is
asked whether a man whose wife
had deserted him for another
man would act as he is repre-
scented in a certain book or play
as acting. No one can say. For
everything would depend on the
character of the man, the char
acter Of the wife, and the Tela-
tions between the two. Much
would also depend on the tenn
permanent of the parties to the
tragedy, their theories of life,
and their moral ideals.
Those who object to the con-
ventional treatment of dramatist
or novelist are guilty Of precise
~ the same mistake-na namely,
that of assuming that there is a
certain way in which men and
women must of a necessity act
under a given set of conditions.
There is a conventionalizing on
both sides. The critics assume
that there are certain things
that men and women must or
must not do precisely because
they are men and women. There
could not possibly be a more ex-
treme standardizing of humanity.
AS a matter of fact there are
no worse conveniOnalizers than
those who insist that the charac-