It is in accord with this movement that children of all classes are more and more taught the use of tools， cooking and other primary arts of life.This not only makes for economy and independence， but educates the " instinct of workmanship，" leading us to feel an interest in all good work and a respect for those who do it.
The main need of men is life， self-expression， not luxury， and if self-expression can be made general material inequalities alone will excite but little resentment.
As to the use of wealth we may expect a growing sense of social responsibility， of which there are already cheerful indications.Since it is no longer respectable to be idle， why may we not hope that it will presently cease to be respectable to indulge one's lower self in other ways梚n pecuniary greed， in luxurious eating， in display， rich clothes and other costly and exclusive pleasures ？
We must not， however， be so optimistic as to overlook the ease with which narrow or selfish interests may form special groups of their own， encouraging one another in greed or luxury to the neglect of the common life.Such associations cannot altogether shut out general sentiment， but they can and do so far deaden its influence that the more hardened or frivolous are practically unconscious of it.While there are some cheerful givers on a large scale among us， and many on a small one， I am not sure that there was ever， on the whole， a commercial society that contributed a smaller part of its gains to general causes.We have done much in this way； but then we are enormously rich； and the most that has been done has been by taxation， which falls most heavily upon small property-owners.The more communal use of wealth is rather a matter of general probability， and of faith in democratic l sentiment， than of demonstrable fact.
Much might be said of the various ways in which more community sentiment might be shown and class resentment alleviated.In the matter of dress， for example； shall one express his community consciousness in it or his class consciousness， assuming that each is natural and creditable？ It would seem that when he goes abroad among men the good democrat should prefer to appear a plain citizen， with nothing about him to interrupt intercourse with any class.And in fact， it is a wholesome feature of American life， in notable contrast with， say， Germany， that high as well as low are averse to wearing military or other distinctive costume in public梕xcept at times of festival or display， when class consciousness is in special function.We feel that if a man wants to distinguish himself in general intercourse he should do so in courtesy or wisdom， not in medals or clothes.
And why should not the same principle， of deference to the community in non-essentials， apply to one's house and to one's way of living in general？
If he has anything worthy to express in these things， let him express it， but not pride or luxury.
Let us not， however， formulize upon the question what one may rightly spend money for， or imagine that formulism is practicable.The principle that wealth is a trust held for the general good is not to be disputed；but latitude must be left to individual conceptions of what the general good is.These are matters not for formulas or sumptuary laws， but for conscience.To set up any other standard would be to suppress individuality and do more harm than good.
Some of us would be glad to see almost any amount of wealth spent upon beautiful architecture， though we might prefer that the buildings be devoted to some public use.Let us have beauty， even luxury， but let it be public and communicable.It certainly seems at first sight that vast expenditure upon private yachts， private cars， costly balls， display of jewelry， sumptuous eating and the like， indicates a low state of culture； but perhaps this is a mistake； no doubt there is some beneficence in these things not generally understood.
