One of most troubling
aspects of the growth of government is how it has limited our creativity in
response to challenges of all kinds. This is especially apparent when financial
difficulties confront us today. Instead of brainstorming as a society for fresh
approaches to age-old difficulties, we pass the problems along to elected
officials whose solutions usually involves forcing one group of people to pay
for the needs or wants of another group. Is it any surprise that Americans
increasingly look at each other with resentment and suspicion?
Ironically, some of the
solutions we seek may be found in the past. Before the welfare state was
created, before either employers or government took or were given responsibility
for insuring us against every conceivable difficulty, people themselves came together
in Mutual Aid or Friendly Societies. These voluntary organizations, the
remnants of which still exist, formed under the premise that there is strength
in numbers. These community-based associations required a small investment of
time and money but provided great returns. They also showed individuals can
work together without government interference to prepare for the future and provide
comfort and security to each other in times of need.
Mutual Aid Societies consisted
of people who banded together for a common financial and sometimes social purpose.
The idea was that regular and widespread contributions to a mutual fund would
build a community nest egg which could be used on behalf of members in times of
need. In England, where these groups
were called Friendly Societies, the purpose was mainly financial: insurance,
pensions, and savings or cooperative banking. In America, where these groups
were usually called mutual aid or benevolent societies or fraternal
organizations, they often combined to fill both financial security and social
needs. Group events included regular meetings, dances and sporting events. Sometimes
there were even ceremonies involved – Think Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble
and the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo lodge with its silly hats, passwords
and convoluted handshake.
Typically, members of
these organizations paid a regular membership fee and in return received an
allowance to cover their financial obligations when they were sick or disabled.
Many societies contracted “lodge doctors,” often newly-trained physicians
looking to establish their practices, whom members could consult free of
charge. During illness fellow society members would also provide emotional support
by visiting regularly - this also helped ensure benefits were not being abused.
When members died their funerals were paid for by their lodge mates and often
there was some money left over for widows or other dependents.
Some mutual aid societies
formed around common religious, ethnic or trade affiliations. There were female
societies and African-American societies. In fact, these societies were often
the only place where single women and blacks could build their own financial
security. An unanticipated benefit of the use of lodge doctors was the
opportunity it provided females and non-whites to become doctors. Medical
colleges were created to train women and blacks for service to their benevolent
societies. Unfortunately, these colleges fell victim to established medical practitioners
who saw lodge doctors in general as competition and a threat to the dignity of
their profession. One way these established professionals used the government
to eliminate competition was by pushing for accreditation for medical schools,
which put many small medical colleges out of business.
Some familiar organizations
with us today are examples of mutual aid societies, most notably the American
Association of Retired Persons and the Knights of Columbus. Credit unions and
other financial services companies such as USAA, which serves retired and
active-duty military personnel and their families, are also present-day equivalents.
Unfortunately, the modern welfare state and the labyrinth of rules and
regulations it has constructed around what once were mutually agreed upon and
beneficial private interactions makes a revival of mutual aid societies on a
small scale difficult if not impossible.
It is regrettable that proven
community-based solutions such as mutual aid societies are no longer considered
practicable. There are many who would chalk this up to the complexity of modern
society but I would remind them that people themselves have not changed, only
the construct within which they operate. We have the power to rectify that, if
only we would.
No comments:
Post a Comment