ogy that helped to sustain it. The division of labor, Ruskin argued, was misnamed. It was not the labour that was divided but the men, who were "divided into mere segments of men—broken into small fragments and crumbs of life." If "the foundations of society were never yet shaken" as they were in the nineteenth century, it was because men were now condemned to forms of labor that made them "less than men" in their own eyes. "It is not that men are ill fed, but that they have no pleasure in the work by which they make their bread, and therefore look to wealth as the only means of pleasure."

The contrast between "culture" and "civilization," first developed by literary intellectuals, soon found its way into social theory. Originally conceived as a description of the contrasting national character of the Germans and the French, it soon came to be seen as the description of a historical sequence: the displacement of social relations founded on status, in Henry Maine's phrase, by those founded on contract. The characteristics associated with "culture" were now read back into the stage of social development preceding the revolutionary upheaval that had brought it to a close. The opposition between the organic and the mechanical, the customary and the contractual, the familial and the individualistic, the intimate and the impersonal now referred to a "law of progress," as Maine put it, with the understanding, of course, that progress, in this context, did not necessarily mean moral and spiritual advance. On the contrary, most of those who found it convenient to give such concepts a historical dimension, even though they sometimes claimed to withhold moral judgment, found the course of recent history deeply troubling.

Even Marx and Engels, whose sympathies lay on the side of progress, spoke in a celebrated passage in the Communist Manifesto of the destruction of "feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations" by "naked self-interest" and "callous 'cash payment.' " In his study of Manchester, Engels wrote that industrialism's disintegrating effects on the working-class family offended every human feeling. Marx used the same language in describing the collapse of the village communities of India under the impact of British colonialism. Like Engels, he believed that the eradication of "patriarchal" arrangements was a necessary stage in the development of a higher civilization, but he made no attempt to minimize the suffering to which this evolution gave rise. It was "sickening ... to human feeling to witness those myriads of industrious, patriarchal and inoffensive social organiza

-137-