THE NEW STATE
By Mary Parker Follett

The Neighborhood Group:
Chapter XXVII
From Neighborhood to Nation: The Unifying State

HOW can the will of the people be the sovereign power of the state?
There must be two changes in our state: first, the state must be
the actual integration of living, local groups, thereby finding
ways of dealing directly with its individual members. Secondly,
other groups than neighborhood groups must be represented in the
state: the ever-increasing multiple group life of today must be
recognized and given a responsible place in politics [1].

     1. This point will be taken up in ch. XXXIII.

  First, every neighborhood must be organized; the neighborhood
groups must then be integrated, through larger intermediary groups,
into a true state. Neither our cities nor our states can ever be
properly administered until representatives from neighborhood
groups meet to discuss and thereby to correlate the needs of all
parts of the city, of all parts of the state.  Social workers and
medical experts have a conference on tuberculosis, social workers
and educational experts have a conference on industrial education. 
We must now develop the methods by which the citizens also are
represented at these conferences. We must go beyond this (for
certain organizations, as the National Settlement Conference at
least, do already have neighborhood representation), and develop
the methods by which regular meetings of representatives from
neighborhood organizations meet to discuss all city and state
problems.  Further still, we must give official recognition to such
gatherings, we must make them a regular part of government.  The
neighborhood must be actually, not theoretically, an integral part
of city, of state, of nation.

  When Massachusetts is thus organized, the neighborhood groups and
intermediary, or district, groups should send representatives to
city council and state legislature. The Senate might be composed of
experts -- experts in education, in housing, in sanitation etc.
[1]. The neighborhood and district centres would receive reports
from their representatives to city council and state legislature
and take measures on these reports.  They should also be required
to send regular reports up to their representative bodies. We
should have a definitely organized and strongly articulated network
of personal interest and representative reporting.  Then the state
legislature must devise ways of dealing not only with the district
group but with the neighborhood groups through the district group,
and thus with every individual in the commonwealth. The nation too
must have a real connection with every little neighborhood centre
through state and district bodies [2].

     1. Or perhaps the Senate might represent the occupational
     group (see ch. XXXIII). Or perhaps the experts mentioned above
     might be representatives from occupational groups.

     2. In North Carolina the recently organized State Bureau of
     Community Service -- made up of the administrators of the
     Department of Agriculture, the Board of Health, the Normal and
     Industrial College and the Farmers' Union, with the State
     Superintendent of Public Instruction as its central executive
     -- is making its immediate work the development of local
     community organization which shall be directly articulated
     with a unified state organization.

  America at war has found a way of getting word from Washington to
the smallest local units.  The Council of National Defense has a
"Section of Cooperation with States."  This is connected with a
State Council of Defense in every state. In most cases the State
Council is connected with County Councils, and these often with
councils in cities and towns.  Beyond this the Council of National
Defense has recently (February, 1918) recommended the extension of
county organization by the creation of Community Councils in every
school district.  Its official statement opens with this sentence:
"The first nine months of the war have shown the vital importance
of developing an official nationwide organization reaching into the
smallest communities to mobilize and make available the efforts of
the whole people for the prosecution of the war." And it goes on to
say that the government must have such close contact with small
units that personal relation with all the citizens is possible.

  President Wilson in endorsing this step, said, "[This is an]
advance of vital significance.  It will, I believe, result when
thoroughly carried out in welding the nation together as no nation
of great size has ever been welded before. . . . It is only by
extending your organization to small communities that every citizen
of the state can be reached."

  Thus when the government found that it must provide means to its
hands for keeping constantly in touch with the whole membership of
the nation, it planned to do this by the encouragement and
fostering of neighborhood organization.  The nation is now seeking
the individual through neighborhood groups.  It is using the School
Centres (it recommends the schoolhouse as the best centre for
community organization) for the teaching of Food and Fuel
Conservation, for Liberty Loan and Red Cross work, for recruiting
for the army, for enlisting workers for war industries, for
teaching the necessity and methods of increasing the food supply,
for plans to relieve transportation by cooperative shipments and
deliveries, for patriotic education etc. [1].  This "patriotic
education" has an interesting side.  In a country which is even
nominally a democracy you cannot win a war without explaining your
aims and your policy and carrying your people with you step by
step. If beyond this the country wishes to be really a democracy,
the neighborhood groups must have a share in forming the aims and
the policy.

  Of course one would always prefer this to be a movement from
below up rather than from above down, but it is not impossible for
the two movements to go on at the same time, as they are in fact
doing now with the rapid development of spontaneous local
organization.  There were Community Councils in existence in fact
if not in name before the recommendation of the Council of National
Defense [2].

     1. The Community Council, however, is not to duplicate other
     organizations but first to coordinate all existing agencies
     before planning new activities.

     2. And spontaneously many towns and villages turned to the
     school-house as the natural centre of its war services.

  Through these non-partisan councils not only national policy can
be explained and spread throughout the country, but also what one
locality thinks out that is good can be reported to Washington and
thus handed on to other sections of the country.  It is a plan for
sending the news backwards and forwards from individual to nation,
from nation to individual, and it is also a plan for correlating
the problems of the local community with the problems of the nation
and of cooperating nations.

  But why should we be more efficiently organized for war than for
peace?  Is our proverbial carelessness to be pricked into
effectiveness only by emergency calls? Is the only motive you can
offer us for efficiency -- to win? Or, if that is an instinctive
desire, can we not change the goal and be as eager to win other
things as war?


  I speak of the new state as resting upon integrated neighborhood
groups [1].  While the changes necessary to bring this about would
have to be planned and authorized by constitutional conventions,
its psychological basis would be: (1) the fact that we are ready
for membership in a larger group only by experience first in the
smaller group, and (2) the natural tendency for a real group to
seek other groups. Let us look at this second point.

     1. For the moment I ignore the occupational group to be
     considered later.

  We have seen the process of the single group evolving. But
contemporaneously a thousand other unities are a-making. Every
group once become conscious of itself instinctively seeks other
groups with which to unite to form a larger whole. Alone it cannot
be effective. As individual progress depends upon the degree of
interpenetration, so group progress depends upon the
interpenetration of group and group.  For convenience I speak of
each group as a whole, but from a philosophical point of view there
is no whole, only an infinite striving for wholeness, only the
_principle_ of wholeness forever leading us on.

  This is the social law: the law which connects neighborhood with
neighborhood.  The reason we want neighborhood organization is not
to keep people within their neighborhoods but to get them out. The
movement for neighborhood organization is a deliberate effort to
get people to identify themselves actually, not sentimentally, with
a larger and larger collective unit than the neighborhood. We may
be able through our neighborhood group to learn the social process,
to learn to evolve the social will, but the question before us is
whether we have enough political genius to apply this method to
city organization, national organization, and international
organization. City must join with city, state with state, actually,
not through party. Finally nation must join with nation.

  The recommendation of the Council of National Defense which has
been mentioned above would repay careful reading for the
indications which one finds in it of the double purpose of
neighborhood organization.  It is definitely stated that the
importance of the Community Council is in: (1) initiating work to
meet its own war needs; and (2) in making all its local resources
available for the nation. And again it is stated that: (1) in a
democracy local emergencies can best be met by local action; and
(2) that each local district should feel the duty of bearing its
full share of the national burden.

  Thus our national government clearly sees and specifically states
that neighborhood organization is both for the neighborhood and for
the nation: that it looks in, it looks out. Thus that which we are
coming to understand as the true social process receives practical
recognition in government policy.

  I have said that neighborhood must join with neighborhood to form
the state. This joining of neighborhood and neighborhood can be
done neither directly nor imaginatively. It cannot be done
directly: representation is necessary not only because the numbers
would be too great for all neighborhoods to meet together, but
because even if it were physically possible we should have created
a crowd not a society. Theoretically when you have large numbers
you get a big, composite consciousness made up of infinite kinds of
fitting together of infinite kinds of individuals, but practically
this varied and multiplied fitting together is not possible beyond
a certain number. There must be representatives from the smallest
units to the larger and larger, up to the federal state.

  Secondly, neighborhoods cannot join with neighborhoods through
the imagination alone. Various people have asserted that now we
have large cities and solidarity cannot come by actual
acquaintance, it must be got by appropriate appeals to the
imagination, by having, for instance, courses of lectures to tell
one part of a city about another part. But this alone will never be
successful. Real solidarity will never be accomplished except by
beginning somewhere the joining of one small group with another. We
are told too that the uneducated man cannot think beyond his
particular section of the universe. We can teach him to think
beyond his particular section of the universe by actually making
him participate in other sections through connecting his section
with others. We are capable of being faithful to large groups as
well as small, to complex groups as well as simple, to our city, to
our nation, but this can be effected only by a certain process, and
that process, while it may begin by a stimulation of the
imagination, must, if it is going to bring forth results in real
life, be a matter of actual experience. Only by actual union, not
by appeals to the imagination, can the various and varied
neighborhood groups be made the constituents of a sound, normal,
unpartisan city life. Then being a member of a neighborhood group
will mean at the same time being a member and a responsible member
of the state.

  I have spoken of the psychological tendency for group to seek
group. Moreover, it is not possible to isolate yourself in your
local group because few local needs can be met without joining with
other localities, which have these same needs, in order to secure
city or state action. We cannot get municipal regulation for the
dance-hall in our neighborhood without joining with other
neighborhoods which want the same thing and securing municipal
regulation for all city dance-halls. If we want better housing
laws, grants for industrial education, we join with other groups
who want these things and become the state. And even if some need
seems purely local, the method of satisfying it ought not to be for
the South End to pull as hard as it can for a new ward building,
say, while the North End is also pulling as hard as it can for a
new ward building, and the winner of such tug-of-war to get the
appropriation. If the South End wants a new ward building it should
understand how much money is available for ward buildings, and if
only enough for one this year, consider where it is most needed. 
Probably, whatever the evidence, it will be decided that it is most
needed in the South End, but a step will be taken towards a
different kind of decision in the future.

  And we join not only to secure city and state but also federal
action. If we want a river or harbor appropriation, we go to
Congress. And if such demands are supplied at present on the
log-rolling basis, we can only hope that this will not always be
so. When group organization has vitalized our whole political life,
there may then be some chance that log-rolling will be repudiated.

  And we do not stop even at Washington. Immigration is a national
and international problem, but the immigrant may live next door to
you, and thus the immigration question becomes one of nearest
concern. This intricate interweaving of our life allows no man to
live to himself or to his neighborhood.

  Then when neighborhood joins with neighborhood all the lessons
learned in the simple group must be practiced in the complex one.
As the group lesson includes not only my responsibility _to_ my
group but my responsibility _for_ my group, so I learn not only my
duty to my neighborhood but that I am responsible for my
neighborhood. Also it is seen that as the individuals of a group
are interdependent, so the various groups are interdependent, and
the problem is to understand just in what way they are
interdependent and how they can be adjusted to one another. The
process of the joining of several groups into a larger whole is
exactly the same as the joining of individuals to form a group --
a reciprocal interaction and correlation.

  The usual notion is that our neighborhood association is to
evolve an idea, a plan, and then when we go to represent it at a
meeting of neighborhood associations from different parts of the
city that we are to try to push through the plan of action decided
on by our own local group. If we do not do this, we are not
supposed to be loyal. But we are certainly to do nothing of the
kind. We are to try to evolve the collective idea which shall
represent the new group, that is, the various neighborhood
associations all acting together. We are told that we must not
sacrifice the interests of the particular group we represent. No,
but also we must not. try to make its interests prevail against
those of others. Its real interests are the interests of the whole.

  And then when we have learned to be truly citizens of Boston, we
must discover how Boston and other cities, how cities and the rural
communities can join. And so on and so on. At last the "real" state
appears. We are pragmatists because we do not want to unite with
the state imaginatively, we want to be the state; we want to
actualize and feel our way every moment, let every group open the
way for a larger group, let every circumference become the centre
of a new circumference. My neighborhood group opens the path to the
State.

  But neighborhoods cooperating actively with the city government
is not to-day a dream. Marcus M. Marks, President of the Borough of
Manhattan, New York City, in 1914 divided Manhattan into sixteen
neighborhoods, and appointed for each a neighborhood commission
composed of business men, professional men, mechanics, clerks etc.
-- a thoroughly representative body chosen irrespective of party
lines. Mr. Marks' avowed object was to obtain a knowledge of the
needs of his constituents, to form connecting links between
neighborhoods and the city government. And these bodies need not
exist dormant until their advice is asked. Sections 1 and 2 of the
Rules and Regulations read:

     "1. The Commissions shall recommend, or suggest, to the
          Borough President, for his consideration and advice,
          matters which, in their opinion will be of benefit to
          their districts and to the City.
     "2. The Commissions shall receive from the Borough President
          suggestions or recommendations for their consideration as
          to matters affecting their districts, and report back
          their conclusions with respect thereto."

  Moreover, beyond the recommendations of the Commission, the
cooperation of the whole neighborhood is sought. "Whenever the
commissions are in doubt as to the policy they desire to advocate
and wish to further sound the sentiment of their localities,
meetings similar to town-meetings are held, usually in the local
schoolhouse."  The "neighborhoods" of Manhattan have cooperated
with the city government in such matters as bus franchise, markets,
location of tracks, floating baths, pavement construction, sewerage
etc.  One of the results of this plan, Mr. Marks tells us, is that
many types of improvement which were formerly opposed, such as
sewerage construction by the owners of abutting property, now
receive the support of the citizens because there is opportunity
for them to understand fully the needs of the situation and even to
employ their own expert if they wish.

  The chairmen of the twelve Neighborhood Commissions form a body
called the Manhattan Commission. This meets to confer with the
President on matters affecting the interests of the entire borough
[1].

     1. I have taken this account from the official report.  I have
     been told by New York people that these commissions have shown
     few signs of life. This does not, however, seem to me to
     detract from the value of the plan as a suggestion, or as
     indication of what is seen to be advisable if not yet wholly
     practicable. The New York charter provides for Local
     Improvement Boards as connecting links with the central
     government, hut these I am told have shown no life whatever.

  This plan, while not yet ideal, particularly in so far as the
commissions are appointed from above, is most interesting to all
those who are looking towards neighborhood organization as the
basis of the new state.

  To summarize: neighborhood groups join with other neighborhood
groups to form the city -- then only shall we understand what it is
to be the city; neighborhood groups join with other neighborhood
groups to form the state -- then only shall we understand what it
is to be the state. We do not begin with a unified state which
delegates authority; we begin with the neighborhood group and
create the state ourselves. Thus is the state built up through the
intimate intertwining of all.

  But this is not a crude and external federalism. We have not
transferred the unit of democracy from the individual to the group.
It is the individual man who' must feel himself the unit of city
government, of state government: he has not delegated his
responsibility to his neighborhood group; he has direct relation
with larger wholes. I have no medieval idea of mediate
articulation, of individuals forming groups and groups forming the
nation.  Mechanical federalism we have long outgrown. The members
of the nation are to be individuals, not groups. The movement for
neighborhood organization is from one point of view a movement to
give the individual political effectiveness -- it is an
individualistic not a collectivistic movement, paradoxical as this
may seem to superficial thinking. But, as the whole structure of
government must rest on the individual, it must have its roots
within that place where you can get nearest to him, and where his
latent powers can best be freed and actualized -- his local group.

  What are we ultimately seeking through neighborhood organization?
To find the individual. But let no one think that the movement for
neighborhood organization is a new movement. Our neighborhood
organization, we are often told, had its origin in the New England
town-meeting. Yes, and far beyond that in the early institutions of
our English ancestors. That our national life must be grounded in
the daily, intimate life of all men is the teaching of the whole
long stream of English history.

  We have seen that the increasing activity of the state, its
social policies and social legislation, demands the activity of
every man. We have seen in considering direct government that the
activity of every man is not enough if we mean merely his activity
at the polling booths. With the inclusion of all men and women
(practically accomplished) in the suffrage, with the rapidly
increasing acceptance of direct government, the _extensive_ work of
the democratic impulse has ended. Now the _intensive_ work of
democracy must begin. The great historic task of the Anglo-Saxon
people has been to find wise and reasoned forms for the expression
of individual responsibility, has been so to bulwark the rights of
the individual as to provide at the same time for the unity and
stability of the state. They have done this externally by making
the machinery of representative government. We want to-day to do it
spiritually, to direct the spiritual currents in their flow and
interflow so that we have not only the external interpenetration --
choosing representatives etc. -- but the deeper interpenetration
which shows the minds and needs and wants of all men.

  We can satisfy our wants only by a genuine union and communion of
all, only in the friendly outpouring of heart to heart. We have
come to the time when we see that the machinery of government can
be useful to us only so far as it is a living thing: the souls of
men are the stones of Heaven, the life of every man must contribute
fundamentally to the growth of the state. So the world spirit seeks
freedom and finds it in a more and more perfect union of true
individuals.  _The relation of neighbors one to another must be
integrated into the substance of the state_. Politics must take
democracy from its external expression of representation to the
expression of that inner meaning hidden in the intermingling of all
men. This is our part to-day- - thus shall we take our place in the
great task of our race. Our political life began in the small
group, but it has taken us long to evolve our relation to a
national life, and meanwhile much of the significance and richness
of the local fife has been lost. Back now to the local unit we must
go with all that we have accumulated, to find in and through that
our complete realization.  Back we must go to this small primary
unit if we would understand the meaning of democracy, if we would
get the fruits of democracy. As Voltaire said, "The spirit of
France is the candle of Europe," so must the spirit of the
neighborhood be the candle of the nation.
