Specialization

I have noticed before that Chesterton tends to oppose specialization; in the first sections of part III of 'What's wrong with the world' I found some reasons he does so. Some examples:
Fire does not exist only to warm people. 'It exists to warm people, to light their darkness, to raise their spirits, to toast their muffins, to air their rooms, to cook their chestnuts, to tell stories to their children, to make checkered shadows on their walls, to boil their hurried kettles, and to be the red heart of a man's house and that hearth for which, as the great heathens said, a man should die.' If this multi-purpose fire is replaced by various substitutes, such as central heating for heat, and electric bulbs for light, we will multiply appliances that only have one specific use, but we will lose some of the purposes of the fire (if only the place where Santa brings the presents).
Religion also used to be a 'maid-of-all-work', who 'taught logic to the student and told fairy tales to the children'. In the modern world, some of her functions have branched off in various sterile subjects: art, ethics, cosmology, psychology, etc.
Now Chesterton does realize the importance, in this world, of specialists. Engineers, tradesmen, etc all need to excel in their own work, they need to be competitive. Chesterton, however, sees this in some ways as an impoverishment: we lose the 'homo universalis'. In his view, women in our society, as the ones protected from the need to specialize, still have the possibility to be universal and not specialized. In their houses, they can be the 'Jack-of-all-trades'. She will, perhaps, not be a great cook, but she'll be better than her specialized husband. In addition to this, she will be a better story-teller than a first-class cook, she will be a house-decorator, a dressmaker, a schoolmistress. 'She should not have one trade but twenty hobbies; she, unlike the man, may develop all her second-bests.'
Chesterton continues the argument by stating that by staying at home, the woman will not be narrowed, but instead be broadened. 'How can it be a large career to tell other people's children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe?'
I do wonder if this still applies in our modern world: children will be at school from six years old (if not earlier), dresses are bought in stores instead of made at home, modern kitchen appliances and conveniences save hours and hours of work. Personally, I could not imagine what I would do with myself the whole day if I did not have a (part-time) job.

The mistake about man

Beyond Father Brown

It appears that Chesterton wrote some detective stories with other 'detectives' than Father Brown; they are collected in the bundle 'Thirteen detectives'. I must confess it is rather odd to continually have a new main character. On the other hand, some stories have some beautiful Chestertonian ideas.
In 'A hole in the wall', for example, Chesterton exposes our modern habit of demystifying the past. One character says: 'For instance, the very name of this place, Prior's Park, makes everybody think of it as a moonlit medieval abbey [-]. But according to the only authoritative study of the matter I can find the place was simply called Prior's as any rural place is called Podger's. It was the house of a Mr. Prior'. Later in the story, though, we hear the following: 'When some critic or other chose to say that Prior's Park was not a priory, but was named after some quite modern man named Prior, nobody really tested the theory at all. It never occurred to anybody repeating the story to ask if there really was any Mr. Prior, if anybody had ever seen him or heard of him.' I find this a rather beautiful illustration of some principles that may still be at work in some other historical perceptions we moderns have.

The homelessness of man

Part I of 'What's wrong with the world' deals with 'the homelessness of man. In the last few sections, we meet a common man, Jones, whose only desire seems to be to live a normal life in his own home. Modern philosophies prevent him from doing this; more specifically Hudge and Gudge (personifications of socialism and capitalism) argue over his head, but do not give him the opportunity to live the life he wants.
Since Chesterton wrote this in a somewhat different cultural context, I sometimes have difficulties following the exact argument on how these philosophies ensure this homelessness of Jones. The conclusion of this part, however, is clear:

The idea of private property universal but private, the idea of families free but still families, of domesticity democratic but still domestic, of one man one house - this remains the real vision and magnet of mankind. The world may accept something more official and general, less human and intimate. but the world will be like a broken-hearted woman who makes a humdrum marriage because she may not make a happy one; Socialism may be the world's deliverance, but it is not the world's desire.

Domesticity

In part I of 'What's wrong with the world', Chesterton poses the old 'principle of domesticity' as a basis. The family, in a home of its own, is in a sense beyond the laws of the state. The common man has, in his own house, a freedom he has nowhere else: a freedom to eat what he likes, to see the persons he likes, to paint his living room green if he likes.
Chesterton realizes that not everyone sees the home this way, but he is careful to explain to us that there is a difference between the common man and some great capitalists. Chesterton talks about limited property, and about working people who do not have time to be bored of their own home and family.
A marriage is a tie, a restriction, and this has been a tradition in most cultures. Chesterton finds it immensely important that one cannot severe this tie the minute it becomes uncomfortable.

In everything on this earth that is worth doing, there is a stage when no one would do it, except for necessity or honor. It is then that the Institution upholds a man and helps him to the firmer ground ahead. [-] Two people must be tied together in order to do themselves justice; for twenty minutes at a dance, or for twenty years in a marriage. In both cases the point is, that if a man is bored in the first five minutes he must go on and force himself to be happy. Coercion is a kind of encouragement; and anarchy (or what some call liberty) is essentially oppressive, because it is essentially discouraging.

Putting the clock backward

One of the first things 'what's wrong with the world' that Chesterton notes is our fear of the past. Instead of looking at the past, moderns often opt to look to the future. Chesterton calls this a 'weakness' or even a 'cowardice of the age'. We do not only not look at the bad things of the past, we also do not look at the good things, the 'unbearable virtue of mankind', the 'huge ideals'. Chesterton insists that we should never dismiss ideas from the past because they are old:

If I am to discuss what is wrong, one of the first things that are wrong is this: the deep and silent modern assumption that past things have become impossible. There is one metaphor of which the moderns are very fond; they are always saying "You can't put the clock back." The simple and obvious answer is "You can." A clock, being a piece of human construction, can be restored by the human finger to any figure or hour. In the same way society, being a piece of human construction, can be restored upon any plan that has ever existed.

There is another proverb, "As you have made your bed, so you must lie on it"; which again is simply a lie. If I have made my bed uncomfortable, please God I will make it again. [-] I merely claim my choice of all the tools in the universe; and I shall not admit that any of them are blunted merely because they have been used.

 In the next section (V), Chesterton gives two examples of old systems that have been tried to a certain extent, but not to their limit. He argues that 'if a thing as been defeated', logic does not dictate that 'it has been disproved'. It simply did not get the time to function properly and show its worth. In this chapter I found Chesterton's famous quote:

The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.

Of course we cannot deny that the Catholic Church has had some opportunity to show its worth. However, Chesterton states that the world, 'did not tire of the church's ideal, but of its reality'. If failed 'largely through the churchmen'.

What is wrong

This working title of what later became 'What's wrong with the world' was shorter, but perhaps somewhat more confusing. Chesterton, in this volume, deals with some social issues, such as imperialism, feminism and education. The first part seems to be an introduction, about general mistakes we make in thinking about the social issues of our time. 

A first mistake is 'the medical mistake': comparing society to a body. There is a huge difference: while we know pretty well what the healthy state of a body is, we do not in the least agree on the healthy state of society. While we may agree about some wrongs, we do not agree about the right. 

Next, we need to realize that when something is fundamentally wrong, we do not need practical men to fix it, but idealistic man to think out something better. One thing that is very practical would be for men to clearly state what they really want, instead for only demanding the things they think they can get. Compromise can work best if we know each man's viewpoint.

Chesterton then proceeds to discuss the problems of the hidden agenda: 'The old hypocrite, Tartuffe or Pecksniff, was a man whose aims were really worldly and practical, while he pretended that they were religious. The new hypocrite is one whose aims are really religious, while he pretends that they are worldly and practical.' Again, one of the most important aims to strive at is a clear statements of doctrines and beliefs, and an avoidance of vague prejudices. Only then can man meet each other: 'A Tory can walk up to the very edge of Socialism, if he knows what is Socialism. But if he is told that Socialism is a spirit, a sublime atmosphere, a noble, indefinable tendency, why, then he keeps out of its way'.