論工業社會及其未來-95

95

有人說我們活在一個自由的社會，因為我們有一些憲法保障的權利。但其實那些沒有看起來那麼重要。在一個社會中個人自由的程度取決於經濟和技術結構更甚於其法律或政府的形式。[16] 許多新英格蘭的印第安民族是君主制，而許多義大利文藝復興的城市被獨裁者控制。但當研讀這些社會時人們會感到它們比我們的社會允許更多的個人自由。某部份的原因是因為這些社會缺乏有效的機制來執行統治者的意志：這些社會沒有現代的、組織精良的警力，沒有快速長程的通訊，沒有監視錄影器，沒有關於一般公民的資料卷宗。因此逃避控制相對容易。

[16] 當美洲殖民地在英國統治下，對自由的法律保障比起美國憲法生效之後更少也更沒有效力，然而在獨立戰爭前後的前工業化美國比工業革命在這個國家發生後有更多個人自由。我們引述 “Violence in America: Historical and Comparative Perspectives”，Hugh Davis Graham 和 Ted Robert Gurr 編輯，第 12 章，作者 Roger Lane，第 476-478 頁：

「財產標準逐步提高，以及隨之而來對官方執法的依賴日益增加（在 19 世紀的美國）……是整個社會的共同點……，社會行為的變化歷時如此之長且影響如此廣泛，暗示著和最根本的當代社會進程的聯繫：即工業城市化自身……。麻薩諸塞州在 1835 年的人口約為 660,940 人，其中 81% 是鄉村人口，壓倒性地前工業化和土生土長。 它的公民習慣於相當大的個人自由。 無論是貨車司機、農民或工匠，他們都習慣於設定自己的行程表，而他們的工作本質使他們在身體上相互獨立……。個人問題、過失甚至犯罪，通常不會引起更廣泛的社會關注……。但在 1835 年剛剛匯聚力量的到城市和到工廠雙重運動對整個 19 世紀和 20 世紀的個人行為產生了漸進的影響。工廠要求行為的規律性，一個需要服從時鐘和日曆節奏的生活，符合工頭和主管的要求。在城市或城鎮，生活在擁擠的社區中的需要約束了許多以前無人反對的行為。大型企業中的藍領和白領雇員相互依賴；由於一個人的工作得配合另一個人的工作，因此一個人的生意不再是他自己的。

到了 1900 年，新的生活和工作組織的結果很明顯，麻薩諸塞州 2,805,346 的居民中約有 76% 被歸類為城市居民。在一個隨意的、獨立的社會中可以容忍的許多暴力或反常行為，在後期更正規化、更合作化的氛圍中已不再被接受......。簡而言之，遷移到城市產生了比前世代更容易馴服、更社會化、更『文明』的一代。」

◈

95

It is said that we live in a free society because we have a certain number of constitutionally guaranteed rights. But these are not as important as they seem. The degree of personal freedom that exists in a society is determined more by the economic and technological structure of the society than by its laws or its form of government. [16] Most of the Indian nations of New England were monarchies, and many of the cities of the Italian Renaissance were controlled by dictators. But in reading about these societies one gets the impression that they allowed far more personal freedom than our society does. In part this was because they lacked efficient mechanisms for enforcing the ruler’s will: There were no modern, well-organized police forces, no rapid long-distance communications, no surveillance cameras, no dossiers of information about the lives of average citizens. Hence it was relatively easy to evade control.

[16] When the American colonies were under British rule there were fewer and less effective legal guarantees of freedom than there were after the American Constitution went into effect, yet there was more personal freedom in pre-industrial America, both before and after the War of Independence, than there was after the Industrial Revolution took hold in this country. We quote from “Violence in America: Historical and Comparative Perspectives,” edited by Hugh Davis Graham and Ted Robert Gurr, Chapter 12 by Roger Lane, pages 476-478:

“The progressive heightening of standards of propriety, and with it the increasing reliance on official law enforcement (in 19th century America) ... were common to the whole society.... [T]he change in social behavior is so long term and so widespread as to suggest a connection with the most fundamental of contemporary social processes; that of industrial urbanization itself....”Massachusetts in 1835 had a population of some 660,940, 81 percent rural, overwhelmingly preindustrial and native born. It’s citizens were used to considerable personal freedom. Whether teamsters, farmers or artisans, they were all accustomed to setting their own schedules, and the nature of their work made them physically independent of each other.... Individual problems, sins or even crimes, were not generally cause for wider social concern....”But the impact of the twin movements to the city and to the factory, both just gathering force in 1835, had a progressive effect on personal behavior throughout the 19th century and into the 20th. The factory demanded regularity of behavior, a life governed by obedience to the rhythms of clock and calendar, the demands of foreman and supervisor. In the city or town, the needs of living in closely packed neighborhoods inhibited many actions previously unobjectionable. Both blue- and white-collar employees in larger establishments were mutually dependent on their fellows; as one man’s work fit into anther’s, so one man’s business was no longer his own.

“The results of the new organization of life and work were apparent by 1900, when some 76 percent of the 2,805,346 inhabitants of Massachusetts were classified as urbanites. Much violent or irregular behavior which had been tolerable in a casual, independent society was no longer acceptable in the more formalized, cooperative atmosphere of the later period.... The move to the cities had, in short, produced a more tractable, more socialized, more ‘civilized’ generation than its predecessors.”