Principles of Social Reconstruction
{"WorkMasterId":5228,"WpPageId":252987,"ParentWpPageId":189742,"Slug":"principles-of-social-reconstruction","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/bertrand-russell/principles-of-social-reconstruction/","RelativeUrl":"theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/bertrand-russell/principles-of-social-reconstruction/","HasFullText":true,"RawHtmlLength":427556,"CleanHtmlLength":371446,"Kicker":"Philosophy Work","Title":"Principles of Social Reconstruction","Deck":"Russell analyzes instinct, institutions, war, property, education, and social reform in the shadow of the First World War.","BackLink":{"Text":"Back to Bertrand Russell","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/bertrand-russell/"},"AuthorCard":{"Label":"Author","Title":"Bertrand Russell","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/bertrand-russell/","MediaHref":"","ImageSrc":"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/bertrand-russell-01-1954-portrait-2.jpg","ImageAlt":"Bertrand Russell Portrait, 1954","FilterTerra":"Western Europe","ClickText":"Bertrand Russell","ClickHref":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/bertrand-russell/","Copies":["1872 CE – 1970 CE","Trellech, Monmouthshire","British analytic philosopher, logician, mathematician, social critic, and Nobel laureate from Trellech whose logicism, theory of descriptions, logical atomism, epistemology, philosophy of language, ethics, pacifism, secular critique, and political writing shaped analytic philosophy and twentieth-century public reason."]},"ContextCards":[{"Label":"Period","Key":"Period:5","Title":"Contemporary History","DateText":"1945 CE – 2065 CE","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/eras-of-thought/philosophers-of-contemporary-history/"},{"Label":"Era","Key":"Era:12","Title":"World War Era","DateText":"1914 CE – 1944 CE","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/eras-of-thought/philosophers-of-modern-history/philosophers-of-the-world-war-era/"},{"Label":"Composition","Title":"1916 CE","Url":"","DateText":""}],"DateNote":"Displayed year is the publication year; the American title Why Men Fight is treated as an alternate title.","GeoCards":[{"Label":"Region","Key":"Region:1"},{"Label":"Terra Avita","Key":"TerraAvita:1"},{"Label":"Terra Avita Region","Key":"TerraAvitaRegion:2"},{"Label":"Modern Country","Key":"Country:GBR:1"}],"OriginalTitle":"","Language":"English","DisciplineCards":[{"Label":"Primary Discipline","Key":"Discipline:political-philosophy"},{"Label":"Secondary Discipline","Key":"Discipline:ethics"}],"Tradition":"Analytic philosophy, logicism, British empiricism, social criticism, secular humanism, and twentieth-century public reason","FullText":{"Title":"Full Text","Copy":"Public-domain full text from Project Gutenberg eBook #55610 .","Url":"","Label":"","Kicker":"","Cards":[]},"CoreThesis":["Russell analyzes instinct, institutions, war, property, education, and social reform in the shadow of the First World War."],"Classification":{"AlternateTitles":"Why Men Fight","KeyConcepts":"Principles of Social Reconstruction; Bertrand Russell; logicism; descriptions; logical atomism; knowledge; language; science; ethics; politics; religion; public reason","Methodology":"Logical analysis, formal argument, empiricist reconstruction, linguistic analysis, public criticism, historical explanation, and social-philosophical argument.","Structure":"Accepted work page for Russell under the Core Major scope; minor journalism, duplicate anthologies, individual letters, source/testimony pages, and works merely about Russell are excluded."},"Arguments":["Connects Russell\u0027s technical work in logic and language with his epistemology, philosophy of science, ethics, politics, secular criticism, and public writing."],"Influence":{"InfluencedBy":"Frege, Peano, Leibniz, Hume, Mill, Moore, Whitehead, Cantor, Cambridge mathematics, British empiricism, and anti-idealism.","InfluenceOn":""},"Significance":["Part of the Core Major Russell corpus that made him central to analytic philosophy, mathematical logic, public ethics, secular critique, and twentieth-century intellectual life.","Used in debates about reference, logic, mathematics, science, knowledge, mind, language, liberalism, religion, education, power, and public responsibility."],"EvidenceNote":["Accepted as a major wartime social-philosophy work."],"MainSections":[{"Kind":"RawSection","Title":"Full Versions","BodyHtml":"\u003cdiv class=\"dz-philo__full-version-grid\"\u003e\n \u003carticle class=\"dz-philo__full-version-card\"\u003e\n \u003cp class=\"dz-philo__full-version-provider\"\u003eProject Gutenberg\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ch3 class=\"dz-philo__full-version-title\"\u003eProject Gutenberg eBook #55610\u003c/h3\u003e\n \u003cp class=\"dz-philo__full-version-meta\"\u003eHtmlText · Imported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ca class=\"dz-philo__full-version-link\" href=\"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/55610\"\u003eOpen full version\u003c/a\u003e\n \u003c/article\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e"},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Core Thesis","Paragraphs":["Russell analyzes instinct, institutions, war, property, education, and social reform in the shadow of the First World War."]},{"Kind":"FieldSection","Title":"Classification","Fields":[{"Label":"Alternate Titles","Value":"Why Men Fight"},{"Label":"Key Concepts","Value":"Principles of Social Reconstruction; Bertrand Russell; logicism; descriptions; logical atomism; knowledge; language; science; ethics; politics; religion; public reason"},{"Label":"Methodology","Value":"Logical analysis, formal argument, empiricist reconstruction, linguistic analysis, public criticism, historical explanation, and social-philosophical argument."},{"Label":"Structure","Value":"Accepted work page for Russell under the Core Major scope; minor journalism, duplicate anthologies, individual letters, source/testimony pages, and works merely about Russell are excluded."}]},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Arguments","Paragraphs":["Connects Russell\u0027s technical work in logic and language with his epistemology, philosophy of science, ethics, politics, secular criticism, and public writing."]},{"Kind":"FieldSection","Title":"Influence","Fields":[{"Label":"Influenced By","Value":"Frege, Peano, Leibniz, Hume, Mill, Moore, Whitehead, Cantor, Cambridge mathematics, British empiricism, and anti-idealism."},{"Label":"Influence On","Value":"Analytic philosophy, mathematical logic, philosophy of language, logical atomism, logical positivism, secular humanism, public philosophy, peace activism, and twentieth-century liberal thought."}]},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Significance","Paragraphs":["Part of the Core Major Russell corpus that made him central to analytic philosophy, mathematical logic, public ethics, secular critique, and twentieth-century intellectual life.","Used in debates about reference, logic, mathematics, science, knowledge, mind, language, liberalism, religion, education, power, and public responsibility."]},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Evidence Note","Paragraphs":["Accepted as a major wartime social-philosophy work."]},{"Kind":"RawSection","Title":"Full Text","BodyHtml":"\u003cp class=\"dz-philo__section-copy dz-philo__full-text-source\"\u003ePublic-domain full text from \u003ca href=\"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/55610\"\u003eProject Gutenberg eBook #55610\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003carticle class=\"dz-philo__full-text-body\"\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"transnote covernote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"center\"\u003eTranscriber’s Note\u003cbr\u003e\r\nCover created by Transcriber and placed in the Public Domain.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003ch1\u003e \u003cspan class=\"larger\"\u003eWHY MEN FIGHT\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h1\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"center large\"\u003e\u003ci\u003eA METHOD OF ABOLISHING\u003cbr\u003e\r\nTHE INTERNATIONAL DUEL\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"p2 center larger vspace\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"small\"\u003eBY\u003c/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\r\nBERTRAND RUSSELL, M.A., F.R.S.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"p1 center smaller\"\u003eSometime Fellow and Lecturer in Trinity\r\nCollege, Cambridge\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"figcenter\" style=\"max-width: 5.6em;\"\u003e\r\n\u003cimg alt=\"(Publisher’s logo)\" height=\"86\" src=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-principles-of-social-reconstruction-bertrand-russell-i-logo.png\" width=\"89\" id=\"img_images_i_logo.png\"\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"p2 center larger\"\u003eNEW YORK\u003cbr\u003e\r\nTHE CENTURY CO.\u003cbr\u003e\r\n1920\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"newpage p4 center smaller vspace\"\u003e\r\nCopyright, 1916, by\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003cspan class=\"smcap\"\u003eThe Century Co.\u003c/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003ci\u003ePublished, January, 1917\u003c/i\u003e\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"newpage p4 narrow\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eLe souffle, le rhythme, la vraie force populaire\r\nmanqua à la réaction. Elle eut les rois, les trésors,\r\nles armées; elle écrasa les peuples, mais elle resta\r\nmuette. Elle tua en silence; elle ne put parler\r\nqu’avec le canon sur ses horribles champs de\r\nbataille…. Tuer quinze millions d’hommes par\r\nla faim et l’épée, à la bonne heure, cela se peut.\r\nMais faire un petit chant, un air aimé de tous, voilà\r\nce que nulle machination ne donnera…. Don\r\nréservé, béni…. Ce chant peut-être à l’aube jaillira\r\nd’un cœur simple, ou l’alouette le trouvera en montant\r\nau soleil, de son sillon d’avril.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"sigright\"\u003e\r\n\u003cspan class=\"smcap\"\u003eMichelet.\u003c/span\u003e\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003chr\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter\"\u003e\r\n\u003ch2 id=\"CONTENTS\"\u003eCONTENTS\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003ctable id=\"toc\" data-summary=\"Contents\"\u003e\r\n\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr class=\"small nobpad\"\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdl\" colspan=\"2\"\u003eCHAPTER\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdr\"\u003ePAGE\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\r\n\u003ctr\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdr top\"\u003eI\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdl\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap\"\u003eThe Principle of Growth\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdr\"\u003e\u003ca href=\"#I\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e3\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\r\n\u003ctr\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdr top\"\u003eII\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdl\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap\"\u003eThe State\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdr\"\u003e\u003ca href=\"#II\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e42\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\r\n\u003ctr\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdr top\"\u003eIII\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdl\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap\"\u003eWar as an Institution\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdr\"\u003e\u003ca href=\"#III\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e79\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\r\n\u003ctr\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdr top\"\u003eIV\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdl\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap\"\u003eProperty\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdr\"\u003e\u003ca href=\"#IV\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e117\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\r\n\u003ctr\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdr top\"\u003eV\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdl\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap\"\u003eEducation\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdr\"\u003e\u003ca href=\"#V\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e153\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\r\n\u003ctr\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdr top\"\u003eVI\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdl\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap\"\u003eMarriage and the Population Question\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdr\"\u003e\u003ca href=\"#VI\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e182\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\r\n\u003ctr\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdr top\"\u003eVII\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdl\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap\"\u003eReligion and the Churches\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdr\"\u003e\u003ca href=\"#VII\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e215\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\r\n\u003ctr\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdr top\"\u003eVIII\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdl\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap\"\u003eWhat We Can Do\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n\u003ctd class=\"tdr\"\u003e\u003ca href=\"#VIII\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e245\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\r\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\r\n\u003chr\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_3\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter\"\u003e\r\n\u003ch2\u003e \u003cspan class=\"larger\"\u003eWHY MEN FIGHT\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter\"\u003e\r\n\u003ch2 class=\"vspace\" id=\"I\"\u003eI\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003cspan class=\"subhead\"\u003eTHE PRINCIPLE OF GROWTH\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"drop-cap\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap1\"\u003eTo\u003c/span\u003e all who are capable of new impressions\r\nand fresh thought, some modification of\r\nformer beliefs and hopes has been brought by\r\nthe war. What the modification has been has\r\ndepended, in each case, upon character and circumstance;\r\nbut in one form or another it has\r\nbeen almost universal. To me, the chief thing\r\nto be learnt through the war has been a certain\r\nview of the springs of human action, what they\r\nare, and what we may legitimately hope that\r\nthey will become. This view, if it is true, seems\r\nto afford a basis for political philosophy more\r\ncapable of standing erect in a time of crisis than\r\nthe philosophy of traditional Liberalism has\r\nshown itself to be. The following lectures,\r\nthough only one of them will deal with war, all\r\nare inspired by a view of the springs of action\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_4\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwhich has been suggested by the war. And all\r\nof them are informed by the hope of seeing such\r\npolitical institutions established in Europe as\r\nshall make men averse to war—a hope which I\r\nfirmly believe to be realizable, though not without\r\na great and fundamental reconstruction of\r\neconomic and social life.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eTo one who stands outside the cycle of beliefs\r\nand passions which make the war seem necessary,\r\nan isolation, an almost unbearable separation\r\nfrom the general activity, becomes unavoidable.\r\nAt the very moment when the universal\r\ndisaster raises compassion in the highest degree,\r\ncompassion itself compels aloofness from\r\nthe impulse to self-destruction which has swept\r\nover Europe. The helpless longing to save men\r\nfrom the ruin towards which they are hastening\r\nmakes it necessary to oppose the stream, to incur\r\nhostility, to be thought unfeeling, to lose for\r\nthe moment the power of winning belief. It is\r\nimpossible to prevent others from feeling hostile,\r\nbut it is possible to avoid any reciprocal hostility\r\non one’s own part, by imaginative understanding\r\nand the sympathy which grows out of\r\nit. And without understanding and sympathy\r\nit is impossible to find a cure for the evil from\r\nwhich the world is suffering.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_5\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\r\nThere are two views of the war neither of\r\nwhich seems to me adequate. The usual view\r\nin this country is that it is due to the wickedness\r\nof the Germans; the view of most pacifists\r\nis that it is due to the diplomatic tangle and\r\nto the ambitions of Governments. I think both\r\nthese views fail to realize the extent to which\r\nwar grows out of ordinary human nature. Germans,\r\nand also the men who compose Governments,\r\nare on the whole average human beings,\r\nactuated by the same passions that actuate\r\nothers, not differing much from the rest of the\r\nworld except in their circumstances. War is accepted\r\nby men who are neither Germans nor\r\ndiplomatists with a readiness, an acquiescence\r\nin untrue and inadequate reasons, which would\r\nnot be possible if any deep repugnance to war\r\nwere widespread in other nations or classes.\r\nThe untrue things which men believe, and the\r\ntrue things which they disbelieve, are an index\r\nto their impulses—not necessarily to individual\r\nimpulses in each case (since beliefs are\r\ncontagious), but to the general impulses of the\r\ncommunity. We all believe many things which\r\nwe have no good ground for believing, because,\r\nsubconsciously, our nature craves certain kinds\r\nof action which these beliefs would render reasonable\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_6\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\r\nif they were true. Unfounded beliefs\r\nare the homage which impulse pays to reason;\r\nand thus it is with the beliefs which, opposite\r\nbut similar, make men here and in Germany believe\r\nit their duty to prosecute the war.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe first thought which naturally occurs to\r\none who accepts this view is that it would be\r\nwell if men were more under the dominion of\r\nreason. War, to those who see that it must\r\nnecessarily do untold harm to all the combatants,\r\nseems a mere madness, a collective insanity\r\nin which all that has been known in time\r\nof peace is forgotten. If impulses were more\r\ncontrolled, if thought were less dominated by\r\npassion, men would guard their minds against\r\nthe approaches of war fever, and disputes would\r\nbe adjusted amicably. This is true, but it is not\r\nby itself sufficient. It is only those in whom the\r\ndesire to think truly is itself a passion who will\r\nfind this desire adequate to control the passions\r\nof war. Only passion can control passion, and\r\nonly a contrary impulse or desire can check impulse.\r\nReason, as it is preached by traditional\r\nmoralists, is too negative, too little living, to\r\nmake a good life. It is not by reason alone that\r\nwars can be prevented, but by a positive life of\r\nimpulses and passions antagonistic to those that\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_7\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\r\nlead to war. It is the life of impulse that\r\nneeds to be changed, not only the life of conscious\r\nthought.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAll human activity springs from two sources:\r\nimpulse and desire. The part played by desire\r\nhas always been sufficiently recognized. When\r\nmen find themselves not fully contented, and\r\nnot able instantly to procure what will cause\r\ncontent, imagination brings before their minds\r\nthe thought of things which they believe would\r\nmake them happy. All desire involves an interval\r\nof time between the consciousness of a\r\nneed and the opportunity for satisfying it.\r\nThe acts inspired by desire may be in themselves\r\npainful, the time before satisfaction can\r\nbe achieved may be very long, the object desired\r\nmay be something outside our own lives,\r\nand even after our own death. Will, as a directing\r\nforce, consists mainly in following desires\r\nfor more or less distant objects, in spite\r\nof the painfulness of the acts involved and the\r\nsolicitations of incompatible but more immediate\r\ndesires and impulses. All this is familiar,\r\nand political philosophy hitherto has been almost\r\nentirely based upon desire as the source of\r\nhuman actions.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut desire governs no more than a part of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_8\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\r\nhuman activity, and that not the most important\r\nbut only the more conscious, explicit, and\r\ncivilized part.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn all the more instinctive part of our nature\r\nwe are dominated by impulses to certain kinds\r\nof activity, not by desires for certain ends.\r\nChildren run and shout, not because of any good\r\nwhich they expect to realize, but because of a\r\ndirect impulse to running and shouting. Dogs\r\nbay the moon, not because they consider that it\r\nis to their advantage to do so, but because they\r\nfeel an impulse to bark. It is not any purpose,\r\nbut merely an impulse, that prompts such\r\nactions as eating, drinking, love-making, quarreling,\r\nboasting. Those who believe that man\r\nis a rational animal will say that people boast\r\nin order that others may have a good opinion\r\nof them; but most of us can recall occasions\r\nwhen we have boasted in spite of knowing that\r\nwe should be despised for it. Instinctive acts\r\nnormally achieve some result which is agreeable\r\nto the natural man, but they are not performed\r\nfrom desire for this result. They are performed\r\nfrom direct impulse, and the impulse\r\nis often strong even in cases in which the normal\r\ndesirable result cannot follow. Grown men like\r\nto imagine themselves more rational than children\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_9\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\r\nand dogs, and unconsciously conceal from\r\nthemselves how great a part impulse plays in\r\ntheir lives. This unconscious concealment always\r\nfollows a certain general plan. When an\r\nimpulse is not indulged in the moment in which\r\nit arises, there grows up a desire for the expected\r\nconsequences of indulging the impulse.\r\nIf some of the consequences which are reasonably\r\nto be expected are clearly disagreeable, a\r\nconflict between foresight and impulse arises.\r\nIf the impulse is weak, foresight may conquer;\r\nthis is what is called acting on reason. If the\r\nimpulse is strong, either foresight will be falsified,\r\nand the disagreeable consequences will be\r\nforgotten, or, in men of a heroic mold, the consequences\r\nmay be recklessly accepted. When\r\nMacbeth realizes that he is doomed to defeat,\r\nhe does not shrink from the fight; he \u003cspan class=\"locked\"\u003eexclaims:—\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"poem-container\"\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"poem\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"stanza\"\u003e\r\n\u003cspan class=\"i18\"\u003eLay on, Macduff,\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\r\n\u003cspan class=\"i0\"\u003eAnd damned be him that first cries, Hold, enough!\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut such strength and recklessness of impulse\r\nis rare. Most men, when their impulse\r\nis strong, succeed in persuading themselves,\r\nusually by a subconscious selectiveness of\r\nattention, that agreeable consequences will\r\nfollow from the indulgence of their impulse.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_10\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\r\nWhole philosophies, whole systems of ethical\r\nvaluation, spring up in this way: they are the\r\nembodiment of a kind of thought which is subservient\r\nto impulse, which aims at providing a\r\nquasi-rational ground for the indulgence of impulse.\r\nThe only thought which is genuine is\r\nthat which springs out of the intellectual impulse\r\nof curiosity, leading to the desire to know\r\nand understand. But most of what passes for\r\nthought is inspired by some non-intellectual impulse,\r\nand is merely a means of persuading ourselves\r\nthat we shall not be disappointed or do\r\nharm if we indulge this impulse.\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_1\" id=\"FNanchor_1\"\u003e1\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhen an impulse is restrained, we feel discomfort\r\nor even violent pain. We may indulge\r\nthe impulse in order to escape from this pain,\r\nand our action is then one which has a purpose.\r\nBut the pain only exists because of the impulse,\r\nand the impulse itself is directed to an act, not\r\nto escaping from the pain of restraining the impulse.\r\nThe impulse itself remains without a\r\npurpose, and the purpose of escaping from pain\r\nonly arises when the impulse has been momentarily\r\nrestrained.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_11\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\r\nImpulse is at the basis of our activity, much\r\nmore than desire. Desire has its place, but not\r\nso large a place as it seemed to have. Impulses\r\nbring with them a whole train of subservient\r\nfictitious desires: they make men feel that they\r\ndesire the results which will follow from indulging\r\nthe impulses, and that they are acting for\r\nthe sake of these results, when in fact their\r\naction has no motive outside itself. A man may\r\nwrite a book or paint a picture under the belief\r\nthat he desires the praise which it will bring\r\nhim; but as soon as it is finished, if his creative\r\nimpulse is not exhausted, what he has done\r\ngrows uninteresting to him, and he begins a new\r\npiece of work. What applies to artistic creation\r\napplies equally to all that is most vital in\r\nour lives: direct impulse is what moves us, and\r\nthe desires which we think we have are a mere\r\ngarment for the impulse.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eDesire, as opposed to impulse, has, it is true,\r\na large and increasing share in the regulation\r\nof men’s lives. Impulse is erratic and anarchical,\r\nnot easily fitted into a well-regulated system;\r\nit may be tolerated in children and artists,\r\nbut it is not thought proper to men who hope to\r\nbe taken seriously. Almost all paid work is\r\ndone from desire, not from impulse: the work itself\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_12\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\r\nis more or less irksome, but the payment\r\nfor it is desired. The serious activities that fill\r\na man’s working hours are, except in a few fortunate\r\nindividuals, governed mainly by purposes,\r\nnot by impulses towards those activities.\r\nIn this hardly any one sees an evil, because the\r\nplace of impulse in a satisfactory existence is\r\nnot recognized.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAn impulse, to one who does not share it\r\nactually or imaginatively, will always seem to\r\nbe mad. All impulse is essentially blind, in the\r\nsense that it does not spring from any prevision\r\nof consequences. The man who does not share\r\nthe impulse will form a different estimate as to\r\nwhat the consequences will be, and as to whether\r\nthose that must ensue are desirable. This difference\r\nof opinion will seem to be ethical or intellectual,\r\nwhereas its real basis is a difference\r\nof impulse. No genuine agreement will be\r\nreached, in such a case, so long as the difference\r\nof impulse persists. In all men who have any\r\nvigorous life, there are strong impulses such\r\nas may seem utterly unreasonable to others.\r\nBlind impulses sometimes lead to destruction\r\nand death, but at other times they lead to the\r\nbest things the world contains. Blind impulse\r\nis the source of war, but it is also the source of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_13\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e\r\nscience, and art, and love. It is not the weakening\r\nof impulse that is to be desired, but the direction\r\nof impulse towards life and growth\r\nrather than towards death and decay.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe complete control of impulse by will, which\r\nis sometimes preached by moralists, and often\r\nenforced by economic necessity, is not really desirable.\r\nA life governed by purposes and desires,\r\nto the exclusion of impulse, is a tiring life;\r\nit exhausts vitality, and leaves a man, in the\r\nend, indifferent to the very purposes which he\r\nhas been trying to achieve. When a whole nation\r\nlives in this way, the whole nation tends to\r\nbecome feeble, without enough grasp to recognize\r\nand overcome the obstacles to its desires.\r\nIndustrialism and organization are constantly\r\nforcing civilized nations to live more and more\r\nby purpose rather than impulse. In the long\r\nrun such a mode of existence, if it does not dry\r\nup the springs of life, produces new impulses,\r\nnot of the kind which the will has been in the\r\nhabit of controlling or of which thought is conscious.\r\nThese new impulses are apt to be worse\r\nin their effects than those that have been\r\nchecked. Excessive discipline, especially when\r\nit is imposed from without, often issues in impulses\r\nof cruelty and destruction; this is one\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_14\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\r\nreason why militarism has a bad effect on national\r\ncharacter. Either lack of vitality, or impulses\r\nwhich are oppressive and against life,\r\nwill almost always result if the spontaneous impulses\r\nare not able to find an outlet. A man’s\r\nimpulses are not fixed from the beginning by his\r\nnative disposition: within certain wide limits,\r\nthey are profoundly modified by his circumstances\r\nand his way of life. The nature of\r\nthese modifications ought to be studied, and the\r\nresults of such study ought to be taken account\r\nof in judging the good or harm that is\r\ndone by political and social institutions.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe war has grown, in the main, out of the\r\nlife of impulse, not out of reason or desire.\r\nThere is an impulse of aggression, and an impulse\r\nof resistance to aggression. Either may,\r\non occasion, be in accordance with reason, but\r\nboth are operative in many cases in which they\r\nare quite contrary to reason. Each impulse\r\nproduces a whole harvest of attendant beliefs.\r\nThe beliefs appropriate to the impulse of aggression\r\nmay be seen in Bernhardi, or in the\r\nearly Mohammedan conquerors, or, in full perfection,\r\nin the Book of Joshua. There is first\r\nof all a conviction of the superior excellence of\r\none’s own group, a certainty that they are in\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_15\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\r\nsome sense the chosen people. This justifies\r\nthe feeling that only the good and evil of one’s\r\nown group is of real importance, and that the\r\nrest of the world is to be regarded merely as\r\nmaterial for the triumph or salvation of the\r\nhigher race. In modern politics this attitude is\r\nembodied in imperialism. Europe as a whole\r\nhas this attitude towards Asia and Africa, and\r\nmany Germans have this attitude towards the\r\nrest of Europe.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eCorrelative to the impulse of aggression is\r\nthe impulse of resistance to aggression. This\r\nimpulse is exemplified in the attitude of the\r\nIsraelites to the Philistines or of medieval\r\nEurope to the Mohammedans. The beliefs\r\nwhich it produces are beliefs in the peculiar\r\nwickedness of those whose aggression is feared,\r\nand in the immense value of national customs\r\nwhich they might suppress if they were victorious.\r\nWhen the war broke out, all the reactionaries\r\nin England and France began to\r\nspeak of the danger to democracy, although until\r\nthat moment they had opposed democracy\r\nwith all their strength. They were not insincere\r\nin so speaking: the impulse of resistance\r\nto Germany made them value whatever was endangered\r\nby the German attack. They loved\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_16\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\r\ndemocracy because they hated Germany; but\r\nthey thought they hated Germany because they\r\nloved democracy.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe correlative impulses of aggression and\r\nresistance to aggression have both been operative\r\nin all the countries engaged in the war.\r\nThose who have not been dominated by one or\r\nother of these impulses may be roughly divided\r\ninto three classes. There are, first, men whose\r\nnational sentiment is antagonistic to the State\r\nto which they are subject. This class includes\r\nsome Irish, Poles, Finns, Jews, and other members\r\nof oppressed nations. From our point of\r\nview, these men may be omitted from our consideration,\r\nsince they have the same impulsive\r\nnature as those who fight, and differ merely in\r\nexternal circumstances.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe second class of men who have not been\r\npart of the force supporting the war have been\r\nthose whose impulsive nature is more or less\r\natrophied. Opponents of pacifism suppose that\r\nall pacifists belong to this class, except when\r\nthey are in German pay. It is thought that\r\npacifists are bloodless, men without passions,\r\nmen who can look on and reason with cold detachment\r\nwhile their brothers are giving their\r\nlives for their country. Among those who are\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_17\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e\r\nmerely passively pacifist, and do no more than\r\nabstain from actively taking part in the war,\r\nthere may be a certain proportion of whom this\r\nis true. I think the supporters of war would be\r\nright in decrying such men. In spite of all the\r\ndestruction which is wrought by the impulses\r\nthat lead to war, there is more hope for a nation\r\nwhich has these impulses than for a nation\r\nin which all impulse is dead. Impulse is\r\nthe expression of life, and while it exists there\r\nis hope of its turning towards life instead of towards\r\ndeath; but lack of impulse is death, and\r\nout of death no new life will come.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe active pacifists, however, are not of this\r\nclass: they are not men without impulsive force\r\nbut men in whom some impulse to which war is\r\nhostile is strong enough to overcome the impulses\r\nthat lead to war. It is not the act of a\r\npassionless man to throw himself athwart the\r\nwhole movement of the national life, to urge an\r\noutwardly hopeless cause, to incur obloquy and\r\nto resist the contagion of collective emotion.\r\nThe impulse to avoid the hostility of public opinion\r\nis one of the strongest in human nature, and\r\ncan only be overcome by an unusual force of\r\ndirect and uncalculating impulse; it is not cold\r\nreason alone that can prompt such an act.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_18\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\r\nImpulses may be divided into those that make\r\nfor life and those that make for death. The\r\nimpulses embodied in the war are among those\r\nthat make for death. Any one of the impulses\r\nthat make for life, if it is strong enough, will\r\nlead a man to stand out against the war. Some\r\nof these impulses are only strong in highly\r\ncivilized men; some are part of common humanity.\r\nThe impulses towards art and science are\r\namong the more civilized of those that make for\r\nlife. Many artists have remained wholly untouched\r\nby the passions of the war, not from\r\nfeebleness of feeling, but because the creative\r\ninstinct, the pursuit of a vision, makes them\r\ncritical of the assaults of national passion, and\r\nnot responsive to the myth in which the impulse\r\nof pugnacity clothes itself. And the few men\r\nin whom the scientific impulse is dominant have\r\nnoticed the rival myths of warring groups, and\r\nhave been led through understanding to neutrality.\r\nBut it is not out of such refined impulses\r\nthat a popular force can be generated\r\nwhich shall be sufficient to transform the world.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere are three forces on the side of life\r\nwhich require no exceptional mental endowment,\r\nwhich are not very rare at present, and might\r\nbe very common under better social institutions.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_19\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\r\nThey are love, the instinct of constructiveness,\r\nand the joy of life. All three are checked and\r\nenfeebled at present by the conditions under\r\nwhich men live—not only the less outwardly fortunate,\r\nbut also the majority of the well-to-do.\r\nOur institutions rest upon injustice and authority:\r\nit is only by closing our hearts against\r\nsympathy and our minds against truth that\r\nwe can endure the oppressions and unfairnesses\r\nby which we profit. The conventional conception\r\nof what constitutes success leads most men\r\nto live a life in which their most vital impulses\r\nare sacrificed, and the joy of life is lost in listless\r\nweariness. Our economic system compels\r\nalmost all men to carry out the purposes of\r\nothers rather than their own, making them feel\r\nimpotent in action and only able to secure a certain\r\nmodicum of passive pleasure. All these\r\nthings destroy the vigor of the community, the\r\nexpansive affections of individuals, and the\r\npower of viewing the world generously. All\r\nthese things are unnecessary and can be ended\r\nby wisdom and courage. If they were ended,\r\nthe impulsive life of men would become wholly\r\ndifferent, and the human race might travel towards\r\na new happiness and a new vigor. To\r\nurge this hope is the purpose of these lectures.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_20\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e\r\nThe impulses and desires of men and women,\r\nin so far as they are of real importance in their\r\nlives, are not detached one from another, but\r\nproceed from a central principle of growth, an\r\ninstinctive urgency leading them in a certain direction,\r\nas trees seek the light. So long as this\r\ninstinctive movement is not thwarted, whatever\r\nmisfortunes may occur are not fundamental disasters,\r\nand do not produce those distortions\r\nwhich result from interference with natural\r\ngrowth. This intimate center in each human\r\nbeing is what imagination must apprehend if\r\nwe are to understand him intuitively. It differs\r\nfrom man to man, and determines for each man\r\nthe type of excellence of which he is capable.\r\nThe utmost that social institutions can do for a\r\nman is to make his own growth free and vigorous:\r\nthey cannot force him to grow according to\r\nthe pattern of another man. There are in men\r\nsome impulses and desires—for example, those\r\ntowards drugs—which do not grow out of the\r\ncentral principle; such impulses, when they become\r\nstrong enough to be harmful, have to\r\nbe checked by self-discipline. Other impulses,\r\nthough they may grow out of the central principle\r\nin the individual, may be injurious to the\r\ngrowth of others, and they need to be checked in\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_21\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe interest of others. But in the main, the impulses\r\nwhich are injurious to others tend to result\r\nfrom thwarted growth, and to be least in\r\nthose who have been unimpeded in their instinctive\r\ndevelopment.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eMen, like trees, require for their growth the\r\nright soil and a sufficient freedom from oppression.\r\nThese can be helped or hindered by political\r\ninstitutions. But the soil and the freedom\r\nrequired for a man’s growth are immeasurably\r\nmore difficult to discover and to obtain than the\r\nsoil and the freedom required for the growth of\r\na tree. And the full growth which may be\r\nhoped for cannot be defined or demonstrated;\r\nit is subtle and complex, it can only be felt by a\r\ndelicate intuition and dimly apprehended by\r\nimagination and respect. It depends not only\r\nor chiefly upon the physical environment, but\r\nupon beliefs and affections, upon opportunities\r\nfor action, and upon the whole life of the community.\r\nThe more developed and civilized the\r\ntype of man the more elaborate are the conditions\r\nof his growth, and the more dependent\r\nthey become upon the general state of the society\r\nin which he lives. A man’s needs and desires\r\nare not confined to his own life. If his\r\nmind is comprehensive and his imagination\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_22\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e\r\nvivid, the failures of the community to which he\r\nbelongs are his failures, and its successes are\r\nhis successes: according as his community succeeds\r\nor fails, his own growth is nourished or\r\nimpeded.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn the modern world, the principle of growth\r\nin most men and women is hampered by institutions\r\ninherited from a simpler age. By the\r\nprogress of thought and knowledge, and by the\r\nincrease in command over the forces of the physical\r\nworld, new possibilities of growth have\r\ncome into existence, and have given rise to new\r\nclaims which must be satisfied if those who make\r\nthem are not to be thwarted. There is less\r\nacquiescence in limitations which are no longer\r\nunavoidable, and less possibility of a good life\r\nwhile those limitations remain. Institutions\r\nwhich give much greater opportunities to some\r\nclasses than to others are no longer recognized\r\nas just by the less fortunate, though the more\r\nfortunate still defend them vehemently. Hence\r\narises a universal strife, in which tradition and\r\nauthority are arrayed against liberty and justice.\r\nOur professed morality, being traditional,\r\nloses its hold upon those who are in revolt. Coöperation\r\nbetween the defenders of the old and\r\nthe champions of the new has become almost impossible.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_23\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\r\nAn intimate disunion has entered\r\ninto almost all the relations of life in continually\r\nincreasing measure. In the fight for freedom,\r\nmen and women become increasingly unable to\r\nbreak down the walls of the Ego and achieve\r\nthe growth which comes from a real and vital\r\nunion.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAll our institutions have their historic basis\r\nin Authority. The unquestioned authority of\r\nthe Oriental despot found its religious expression\r\nin the omnipotent Creator, whose glory was\r\nthe sole end of man, and against whom man\r\nhad no rights. This authority descended to the\r\nEmperor and Pope, to the kings of the Middle\r\nAges, to the nobles in the feudal hierarchy, and\r\neven to every husband and father in his dealings\r\nwith his wife and children. The Church\r\nwas the direct embodiment of the Divine authority,\r\nthe State and the law were constituted\r\nby the authority of the King, private property\r\nin land grew out of the authority of conquering\r\nbarons, and the family was governed by the authority\r\nof the pater-familias.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe institutions of the Middle Ages permitted\r\nonly a fortunate few to develop freely: the vast\r\nmajority of mankind existed to minister to the\r\nfew. But so long as authority was genuinely\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_24\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e\r\nrespected and acknowledged even by its least\r\nfortunate subjects, medieval society remained\r\norganic and not fundamentally hostile to life,\r\nsince outward submission was compatible with\r\ninward freedom because it was voluntary. The\r\ninstitutions of Western Christendom embodied\r\na theory which was really believed, as no theory\r\nby which our present institutions can be defended\r\nis now believed.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe medieval theory of life broke down\r\nthrough its failure to satisfy men’s demands for\r\njustice and liberty. Under the stress of oppression,\r\nwhen rulers exceeded their theoretical\r\npowers, the victims were forced to realize that\r\nthey themselves also had rights, and need not\r\nlive merely to increase the glory of the few.\r\nGradually it came to be seen that if men have\r\npower, they are likely to abuse it, and that\r\nauthority in practice means tyranny. Because\r\nthe claim to justice was resisted by the holders\r\nof power, men became more and more separate\r\nunits, each fighting for his own rights, not a\r\ngenuine community bound together by an organic\r\ncommon purpose. This absence of a common\r\npurpose has become a source of unhappiness.\r\nOne of the reasons which led many men\r\nto welcome the outbreak of the present war was\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_25\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthat it made each nation again a whole community\r\nwith a single purpose. It did this by destroying,\r\nfor the present, the beginnings of a\r\nsingle purpose in the civilized world as a whole;\r\nbut these beginnings were as yet so feeble that\r\nfew were much affected by their destruction.\r\nMen rejoiced in the new sense of unity with their\r\ncompatriots more than they minded the increased\r\nseparation from their enemies.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe hardening and separation of the individual\r\nin the course of the fight for freedom\r\nhas been inevitable, and is not likely ever to\r\nbe wholly undone. What is necessary, if an organic\r\nsociety is to grow up, is that our institutions\r\nshould be so fundamentally changed as to\r\nembody that new respect for the individual and\r\nhis rights which modern feeling demands. The\r\nmedieval Empire and Church swept away the\r\nindividual. There were heretics, but they were\r\nmassacred relentlessly, without any of the\r\nqualms aroused by later persecutions. And\r\nthey, like their persecutors, were persuaded that\r\nthere ought to be one universal Church: they\r\ndiffered only as to what its creed should be.\r\nAmong a few men of art and letters, the Renaissance\r\nundermined the medieval theory, without,\r\nhowever, replacing it by anything but skepticism\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_26\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e\r\nand confusion. The first serious breach in this\r\nmedieval theory was caused by Luther’s assertion\r\nof the right of private judgment and the\r\nfallibility of General Councils. Out of this assertion\r\ngrew inevitably, with time, the belief\r\nthat a man’s religion could not be determined\r\nfor him by authority, but must be left to the free\r\nchoice of each individual. It was in matters of\r\nreligion that the battle for liberty began, and\r\nit is in matters of religion that it has come nearest\r\nto a complete victory.\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_2\" id=\"FNanchor_2\"\u003e2\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe development through extreme individualism\r\nto strife, and thence, one hopes, to a new\r\nreintegration, is to be seen in almost every\r\ndepartment of life. Claims are advanced in the\r\nname of justice, and resisted in the name of tradition\r\nand prescriptive right. Each side honestly\r\nbelieves that it deserves to triumph, because\r\ntwo theories of society exist side by side\r\nin our thought, and men choose, unconsciously,\r\nthe theory which fits their case. Because the\r\nbattle is long and arduous all general theory is\r\ngradually forgotten; in the end, nothing remains\r\nbut self-assertion, and when the oppressed win\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_27\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e\r\nfreedom they are as oppressive as their former\r\nmasters.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis is seen most crudely in the case of what\r\nis called nationalism. Nationalism, in theory,\r\nis the doctrine that men, by their sympathies and\r\ntraditions, form natural groups, called “nations,”\r\neach of which ought to be united under\r\none central Government. In the main this doctrine\r\nmay be conceded. But in practice the doctrine\r\ntakes a more personal form. “I belong,”\r\nthe oppressed nationalist argues, “by sympathy\r\nand tradition to nation A, but I am subject to a\r\ngovernment which is in the hands of nation B.\r\nThis is an injustice, not only because of the general\r\nprinciple of nationalism, but because nation\r\nA is generous, progressive, and civilized, while\r\nnation B is oppressive, retrograde, and barbarous.\r\nBecause this is so, nation A deserves to\r\nprosper, while nation B deserves to be abased.”\r\nThe inhabitants of nation B are naturally deaf\r\nto the claims of abstract justice, when they are\r\naccompanied by personal hostility and contempt.\r\nPresently, however, in the course of\r\nwar, nation A acquires its freedom. The\r\nenergy and pride which have achieved freedom\r\ngenerates a momentum which leads on, almost\r\ninfallibly, to the attempt at foreign conquest, or\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_28\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e\r\nto the refusal of liberty to some smaller nation.\r\n“What? You say that nation C, which forms\r\npart of our State, has the same rights against\r\nus as we had against nation A? But that is absurd.\r\nNation C is swinish and turbulent, incapable\r\nof good government, needing a strong\r\nhand if it is not to be a menace and a disturbance\r\nto all its neighbors.” So the English used to\r\nspeak of the Irish, so the Germans and Russians\r\nspeak of the Poles, so the Galician Poles speak\r\nof the Ruthenes, so the Austrians used to speak\r\nof the Magyars, so the Magyars speak of the\r\nSouth Slav sympathizers with Serbia, so the\r\nSerbs speak of the Macedonian Bulgars. In\r\nthis way nationalism, unobjectionable in theory,\r\nleads by a natural movement to oppression and\r\nwars of conquest. No sooner was France free\r\nfrom the English, in the fifteenth century, than\r\nit embarked upon the conquest of Italy; no\r\nsooner was Spain freed from the Moors than it\r\nentered into more than a century of conflict\r\nwith France for the supremacy in Europe. The\r\ncase of Germany is very interesting in this respect.\r\nAt the beginning of the eighteenth century\r\nGerman culture was French: French was\r\nthe language of the Courts, the language in\r\nwhich Leibnitz wrote his philosophy, the universal\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_29\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\r\nlanguage of polite letters and learning.\r\nNational consciousness hardly existed. Then a\r\nseries of great men created a self-respect in\r\nGermany by their achievements in poetry,\r\nmusic, philosophy, and science. But politically\r\nGerman nationalism was only created by Napoleon’s\r\noppression and the uprising of 1813.\r\nAfter centuries during which every disturbance\r\nof the peace of Europe began with a French or\r\nSwedish or Russian invasion of Germany, the\r\nGermans discovered that by sufficient effort and\r\nunion they could keep foreign armies off their\r\nterritory. But the effort required had been too\r\ngreat to cease when its purely defensive purpose\r\nhad been achieved by the defeat of Napoleon.\r\nNow, a hundred years later, they\r\nare still engaged in the same movement,\r\nwhich has become one of aggression and\r\nconquest. Whether we are now seeing the end\r\nof the movement it is not yet possible to\r\nguess.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIf men had any strong sense of a community\r\nof nations, nationalism would serve to define\r\nthe boundaries of the various nations. But because\r\nmen only feel community within their own\r\nnation, nothing but force is able to make them\r\nrespect the rights of other nations, even when\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_30\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthey are asserting exactly similar rights on their\r\nown behalf.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAnalogous development is to be expected,\r\nwith the course of time, in the conflict between\r\ncapital and labor which has existed since the\r\ngrowth of the industrial system, and in the conflict\r\nbetween men and women, which is still in its\r\ninfancy.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat is wanted, in these various conflicts, is\r\nsome principle, genuinely believed, which will\r\nhave justice for its outcome. The tug of war\r\nof mutual self-assertion can only result in\r\njustice through an accidental equality of force.\r\nIt is no use to attempt any bolstering up of institutions\r\nbased on authority, since all such institutions\r\ninvolve injustice, and injustice once\r\nrealized cannot be perpetuated without fundamental\r\ndamage both to those who uphold it and\r\nto those who resist it. The damage consists in\r\nthe hardening of the walls of the Ego, making\r\nthem a prison instead of a window. Unimpeded\r\ngrowth in the individual depends upon many\r\ncontacts with other people, which must be of the\r\nnature of free coöperation, not of enforced service.\r\nWhile the belief in authority was alive,\r\nfree coöperation was compatible with inequality\r\nand subjection, but now equality and mutual\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_31\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e\r\nfreedom are necessary. All institutions, if they\r\nare not to hamper individual growth, must be\r\nbased as far as possible upon voluntary combination,\r\nrather than the force of the law or the\r\ntraditional authority of the holders of power.\r\nNone of our institutions can survive the application\r\nof this principle without great and fundamental\r\nchanges; but these changes are imperatively\r\nnecessary if the world is to be withheld\r\nfrom dissolving into hard separate units each at\r\nwar with all the others.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe two chief sources of good relations between\r\nindividuals are instinctive liking and a\r\ncommon purpose. Of these two, a common purpose\r\nmight seem more important politically,\r\nbut, in fact, it is often the outcome, not the\r\ncause, of instinctive liking, or of a common instinctive\r\naversion. Biological groups, from\r\nthe family to the nation, are constituted by a\r\ngreater or less degree of instinctive liking, and\r\nbuild their common purposes on this foundation.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eInstinctive liking is the feeling which makes\r\nus take pleasure in another person’s company,\r\nfind an exhilaration in his presence, wish to\r\ntalk with him, work with him, play with him.\r\nThe extreme form of it is being in love, but its\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_32\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e\r\nfainter forms, and even the very faintest, have\r\npolitical importance. The presence of a person\r\nwho is instinctively disliked tends to make any\r\nother person more likable. An anti-Semite\r\nwill love any fellow-Christian when a Jew is\r\npresent. In China, or the wilds of Africa, any\r\nwhite man would be welcomed with joy. A\r\ncommon aversion is one of the most frequent\r\ncauses of mild instinctive liking.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eMen differ enormously in the frequency and\r\nintensity of their instinctive likings, and the\r\nsame man will differ greatly at different times.\r\nOne may take Carlyle and Walt Whitman as opposite\r\npoles in this respect. To Carlyle, at any\r\nrate in later life, most men and women were repulsive;\r\nthey inspired an instinctive aversion\r\nwhich made him find pleasure in imagining them\r\nunder the guillotine or perishing in battle. This\r\nled him to belittle most men, finding satisfaction\r\nonly in those who had been notably destructive\r\nof human life—Frederick the Great, Dr. Francia,\r\nand Governor Eyre. It led him to love war\r\nand violence, and to despise the weak and the\r\noppressed—for example, the “thirty thousand\r\ndistressed needlewomen,” on whom he was\r\nnever weary of venting his scorn. His morals\r\nand his politics, in later life, were inspired\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_33\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthrough and through by repugnance to almost\r\nthe whole human race.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWalt Whitman, on the contrary, had a warm,\r\nexpansive feeling towards the vast majority of\r\nmen and women. His queer catalogues seemed\r\nto him interesting because each item came before\r\nhis imagination as an object of delight.\r\nThe sort of joy which most people feel only in\r\nthose who are exceptionally beautiful or splendid\r\nWalt Whitman felt in almost everybody.\r\nOut of this universal liking grew optimism,\r\na belief in democracy, and a conviction that it is\r\neasy for men to live together in peace and amity.\r\nHis philosophy and politics, like Carlyle’s, were\r\nbased upon his instinctive attitude towards ordinary\r\nmen and women.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere is no objective reason to be given to\r\nshow that one of these attitudes is essentially\r\nmore rational than the other. If a man finds\r\npeople repulsive, no argument can prove to him\r\nthat they are not so. But both his own desires\r\nand other people’s are much more likely to find\r\nsatisfaction if he resembles Walt Whitman\r\nthan if he resembles Carlyle. A world of\r\nWalt Whitmans would be happier and more\r\ncapable of realizing its purposes than a world of\r\nCarlyles. For this reason, we shall desire, if we\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_34\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e\r\ncan, to increase the amount of instinctive liking\r\nin the world and diminish the amount of instinctive\r\naversion. This is perhaps the most\r\nimportant of all the effects by which political institutions\r\nought to be judged.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe other source of good relations between individuals\r\nis a common purpose, especially where\r\nthat purpose cannot be achieved without knowing\r\nits cause. Economic organizations, such as\r\nunions and political parties are constituted almost\r\nwholly by a common purpose; whatever instinctive\r\nliking may come to be associated with\r\nthem is the result of the common purpose, not\r\nits cause. Economic organizations, such as railway\r\ncompanies, subsist for a purpose, but this\r\npurpose need only actually exist in those who\r\ndirect the organization: the ordinary wage-earner\r\nneed have no purpose beyond earning his\r\nwages. This is a defect in economic organizations,\r\nand ought to be remedied. One of the objects\r\nof syndicalism is to remedy this defect.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eMarriage is (or should be) based on instinctive\r\nliking, but as soon as there are children, or\r\nthe wish for children, it acquires the additional\r\nstrength of a common purpose. It is this chiefly\r\nwhich distinguishes it from an irregular connection\r\nnot intended to lead to children. Often, in\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_35\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e\r\nfact, the common purpose survives, and remains\r\na strong tie, after the instinctive liking has\r\nfaded.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA nation, when it is real and not artificial, is\r\nfounded upon a faint degree of instinctive liking\r\nfor compatriots and a common instinctive aversion\r\nfrom foreigners. When an Englishman returns\r\nto Dover or Folkestone after being on\r\nthe Continent, he feels something friendly in the\r\nfamiliar ways: the casual porters, the shouting\r\npaper boys, the women serving bad tea, all warm\r\nhis heart, and seem more “natural,” more what\r\nhuman beings ought to be, than the foreigners\r\nwith their strange habits of behavior. He is\r\nready to believe that all English people are good\r\nsouls, while many foreigners are full of designing\r\nwickedness. It is such feelings that make\r\nit easy to organize a nation into a governmental\r\nunit. And when that has happened, a common\r\npurpose is added, as in marriage. Foreigners\r\nwould like to invade our country and lay it\r\nwaste, to kill us in battle, to humble our pride.\r\nThose who coöperate with us in preventing this\r\ndisaster are our friends, and their coöperation\r\nintensifies our instinctive liking. But common\r\npurposes do not constitute the whole source of\r\nour love of country: allies, even of long standing,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_36\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e\r\ndo not call out the same feelings as are\r\ncalled out by our compatriots. Instinctive liking,\r\nresulting largely from similar habits and\r\ncustoms, is an essential element in patriotism,\r\nand, indeed, the foundation upon which the\r\nwhole feeling rests.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIf men’s natural growth is to be promoted and\r\nnot hindered by the environment, if as many as\r\npossible of their desires and needs are to be\r\nsatisfied, political institutions must, as far as\r\npossible, embody common purposes and foster\r\ninstinctive liking. These two objects are interconnected,\r\nfor nothing is so destructive of instinctive\r\nliking as thwarted purposes and unsatisfied\r\nneeds, and nothing facilitates coöperation\r\nfor common purposes so much as instinctive\r\nliking. When a man’s growth is unimpeded,\r\nhis self-respect remains intact, and he is\r\nnot inclined to regard others as his enemies.\r\nBut when, for whatever reason, his growth is\r\nimpeded, or he is compelled to grow into some\r\ntwisted and unnatural shape, his instinct presents\r\nthe environment as his enemy, and he becomes\r\nfilled with hatred. The joy of life abandons\r\nhim, and malevolence takes the place of\r\nfriendliness. The malevolence of hunchbacks\r\nand cripples is proverbial; and a similar\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_37\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e\r\nmalevolence is to be found in those who have\r\nbeen crippled in less obvious ways. Real freedom,\r\nif it could be brought about, would go a\r\nlong way towards destroying hatred.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere is a not uncommon belief that what is\r\ninstinctive in us cannot be changed, but must\r\nbe simply accepted and made the best of. This\r\nis by no means the case. No doubt we have a\r\ncertain native disposition, different in different\r\npeople, which coöperates with outside circumstances\r\nin producing a certain character. But\r\neven the instinctive part of our character is very\r\nmalleable. It may be changed by beliefs, by\r\nmaterial circumstances, by social circumstances,\r\nand by institutions. A Dutchman has probably\r\nmuch the same native disposition as a German,\r\nbut his instincts in adult life are very different\r\nowing to the absence of militarism and of the\r\npride of a Great Power. It is obvious that the\r\ninstincts of celibates become profoundly different\r\nfrom those of other men and women. Almost\r\nany instinct is capable of many different\r\nforms according to the nature of the outlets\r\nwhich it finds. The same instinct which leads to\r\nartistic or intellectual creativeness may, under\r\nother circumstances, lead to love of war. The\r\nfact that an activity or belief is an outcome of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_38\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e\r\ninstinct is therefore no reason for regarding it\r\nas unalterable.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis applies to people’s instinctive likes and\r\ndislikes as well as to their other instincts. It\r\nis natural to men, as to other animals, to like\r\nsome of their species and dislike others; but\r\nthe proportion of like and dislike depends on\r\ncircumstances, often on quite trivial circumstances.\r\nMost of Carlyle’s misanthropy is attributable\r\nto dyspepsia; probably a suitable\r\nmedical regimen would have given him a completely\r\ndifferent outlook on the world. The defect\r\nof punishment, as a means of dealing with\r\nimpulses which the community wishes to discourage,\r\nis that it does nothing to prevent the\r\nexistence of the impulses, but merely endeavors\r\nto check their indulgence by an appeal to self-interest.\r\nThis method, since it does not eradicate\r\nthe impulses, probably only drives them to\r\nfind other outlets even when it is successful in\r\nits immediate object; and if the impulses are\r\nstrong, mere self-interest is not likely to curb\r\nthem effectually, since it is not a very powerful\r\nmotive except with unusually reasonable and\r\nrather passionless people. It is thought to be\r\na stronger motive than it is, because our moods\r\nmake us deceive ourselves as to our interest, and\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_39\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e\r\nlead us to believe that it is consistent with the\r\nactions to which we are prompted by desire or\r\nimpulse.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThus the commonplace that human nature\r\ncannot be changed is untrue. We all know that\r\nour own characters and those of our acquaintance\r\nare greatly affected by circumstances; and\r\nwhat is true of individuals is true also of nations.\r\nThe root causes of changes in average\r\nhuman nature are generally either purely material\r\nchanges—for instance, of climate—or\r\nchanges in the degree of man’s control over the\r\nmaterial world. We may ignore the purely material\r\nchanges, since these do not much concern\r\nthe politician. But the changes due to man’s\r\nincreased control over the material world, by\r\ninventions and science, are of profound present\r\nimportance. Through the industrial revolution,\r\nthey have radically altered the daily lives of\r\nmen; and by creating huge economic organizations,\r\nthey have altered the whole structure of\r\nsociety. The general beliefs of men, which are,\r\nin the main, a product of instinct and circumstance,\r\nhave become very different from what\r\nthey were in the eighteenth century. But our\r\ninstitutions are not yet suited either to the instincts\r\ndeveloped by our new circumstances, or\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_40\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e\r\nto our real beliefs. Institutions have a life of\r\ntheir own, and often outlast the circumstances\r\nwhich made them a fit garment for instinct.\r\nThis applies, in varying degrees, to almost all\r\nthe institutions which we have inherited from\r\nthe past: the State, private property, the patriarchal\r\nfamily, the Churches, armies and navies.\r\nAll of these have become in some degree oppressive,\r\nin some measures hostile to life.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn any serious attempt at political reconstruction,\r\nit is necessary to realize what are the\r\nvital needs of ordinary men and women. It is\r\ncustomary, in political thought, to assume that\r\nthe only needs with which politics is concerned\r\nare economic needs. This view is quite inadequate\r\nto account for such an event as the present\r\nwar, since any economic motives that may be\r\nassigned for it are to a great extent mythical,\r\nand its true causes must be sought for outside\r\nthe economic sphere. Needs which are normally\r\nsatisfied without conscious effort remain\r\nunrecognized, and this results in a working\r\ntheory of human needs which is far too simple.\r\nOwing chiefly to industrialism, many needs\r\nwhich were formerly satisfied without effort\r\nnow remain unsatisfied in most men and women.\r\nBut the old unduly simple theory of human\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_41\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e\r\nneeds survives, making men overlook the source\r\nof the new lack of satisfaction, and invent quite\r\nfalse theories as to why they are dissatisfied.\r\nSocialism as a panacea seems to me to be mistaken\r\nin this way, since it is too ready to suppose\r\nthat better economic conditions will of\r\nthemselves make men happy. It is not only\r\nmore material goods that men need, but more\r\nfreedom, more self-direction, more outlet for\r\ncreativeness, more opportunity for the joy of\r\nlife, more voluntary coöperation, and less involuntary\r\nsubservience to purposes not their\r\nown. All these things the institutions of the\r\nfuture must help to produce, if our increase of\r\nknowledge and power over Nature is to bear its\r\nfull fruit in bringing about a good life.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_42\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter\"\u003e\r\n\u003ch2 class=\"vspace\" id=\"II\"\u003eII\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003cspan class=\"subhead\"\u003eTHE STATE\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"drop-cap\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap1\"\u003eUnder\u003c/span\u003e the influence of socialism, most\r\nliberal thought in recent years has been\r\nin favor of increasing the power of the State,\r\nbut more or less hostile to the power of private\r\nproperty. On the other hand, syndicalism has\r\nbeen hostile both to the State and to private\r\nproperty. I believe that syndicalism is more\r\nnearly right than socialism in this respect, that\r\nboth private property and the State, which are\r\nthe two most powerful institutions of the\r\nmodern world, have become harmful to life\r\nthrough excess of power, and that both are\r\nhastening the loss of vitality from which the\r\ncivilized world increasingly suffers. The two\r\ninstitutions are closely connected, but for the\r\npresent I wish to consider only the State. I\r\nshall try to show how great, how unnecessary,\r\nhow harmful, many of its powers are, and how\r\nenormously they might be diminished without\r\nloss of what is useful in its activity. But I shall\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_43\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e\r\nadmit that in certain directions its functions\r\nought to be extended rather than curtailed.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eSome of the functions of the State, such as\r\nthe Post Office and elementary education, might\r\nbe performed by private agencies, and are only\r\nundertaken by the State from motives of convenience.\r\nBut other matters, such as the law,\r\nthe police, the Army, and the Navy, belong more\r\nessentially to the State: so long as there is a\r\nState at all it is difficult to imagine these matters\r\nin private hands. The distinction between\r\nsocialism and individualism turns on the nonessential\r\nfunctions of the State, which the socialist\r\nwishes to extend and the individualist to restrict.\r\nIt is the essential functions, which\r\nare admitted by individualists and socialists\r\nalike, that I wish to criticize, since the others\r\ndo not appear to me in themselves objectionable.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe essence of the State is that it is the\r\nrepository of the collective force of its citizens.\r\nThis force takes two forms, one internal and\r\none external. The internal form is the law and\r\nthe police; the external form is the power of\r\nwaging war, as embodied in the Army and Navy.\r\nThe State is constituted by the combination\r\nof all the inhabitants in a certain area using\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_44\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e\r\ntheir united force in accordance with the commands\r\nof a Government. In a civilized State\r\nforce is only employed against its own citizens\r\nin accordance with rules previously laid down,\r\nwhich constitute the criminal law. But the employment\r\nof force against foreigners is not regulated\r\nby any code of rules, and proceeds, with\r\nfew exceptions, according to some real or fancied\r\nnational interest.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere can be no doubt that force employed\r\naccording to law is less pernicious than force\r\nemployed capriciously. If international law\r\ncould acquire sufficient hold on men’s allegiance\r\nto regulate the relations of States, a very\r\ngreat advance on our present condition would\r\nhave been made. The primitive anarchy which\r\nprecedes law is worse than law. But I believe\r\nthere is a possibility of a stage to some extent\r\nabove law, where the advantages now secured\r\nby the law are secured without loss of freedom,\r\nand without the disadvantages which the law\r\nand the police render inevitable. Probably\r\nsome repository of force in the background will\r\nremain necessary, but the actual employment\r\nof force may become very rare, and the degree\r\nof force required very small. The anarchy\r\nwhich precedes law gives freedom only to the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_45\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e\r\nstrong; the condition to be aimed at will give\r\nfreedom as nearly as possible to every one. It\r\nwill do this, not by preventing altogether the\r\nexistence of organized force, but by limiting the\r\noccasions for its employment to the greatest\r\npossible extent.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe power of the State is only limited internally\r\nby the fear of rebellion and externally\r\nby the fear of defeat in war. Subject to these\r\nrestrictions, it is absolute. In practice, it can\r\nseize men’s property through taxation, determine\r\nthe law of marriage and inheritance, punish\r\nthe expression of opinions which it dislikes,\r\nput men to death for wishing the region they\r\ninhabit to belong to a different State, and order\r\nall able-bodied males to risk their lives in battle\r\nwhenever it considers war desirable. On\r\nmany matters disagreement with the purposes\r\nand opinions of the State is criminal. Probably\r\nthe freest States in the world, before the\r\nwar, were America and England; yet in America\r\nno immigrant may land until he has professed\r\ndisbelief in anarchism and polygamy,\r\nwhile in England men were sent to prison in\r\nrecent years for expressing disagreement with\r\nthe Christian religion\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_3\" id=\"FNanchor_3\"\u003e3\u003c/a\u003e or agreement with the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_46\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e\r\nteaching of Christ.\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_4\" id=\"FNanchor_4\"\u003e4\u003c/a\u003e In time of war, all criticism\r\nof the external policy of the State is criminal.\r\nCertain objects having appeared desirable\r\nto the majority, or to the effective holders\r\nof power, those who do not consider these objects\r\ndesirable are exposed to pains and penalties\r\nnot unlike those suffered by heretics in the\r\npast. The extent of the tyranny thus exercised\r\nis concealed by its very success: few men\r\nconsider it worth while to incur a persecution\r\nwhich is almost certain to be thorough and effective.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eUniversal military service is perhaps the extreme\r\nexample of the power of the State, and\r\nthe supreme illustration of the difference between\r\nits attitude to its own citizens and its attitude\r\nto the citizens of other States. The State\r\npunishes, with impartial rigor, both those who\r\nkill their compatriots and those who refuse to\r\nkill foreigners. On the whole, the latter is considered\r\nthe graver crime. The phenomenon of\r\nwar is familiar, and men fail to realize its\r\nstrangeness; to those who stand inside the cycle\r\nof instincts which lead to war it all seems natural\r\nand reasonable. But to those who stand\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_47\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e\r\noutside the strangeness of it grows with familiarity.\r\nIt is amazing that the vast majority of\r\nmen should tolerate a system which compels\r\nthem to submit to all the horrors of the battlefield\r\nat any moment when their Government\r\ncommands them to do so. A French artist, indifferent\r\nto politics, attentive only to his painting,\r\nsuddenly finds himself called upon to shoot\r\nGermans, who, his friends assure him, are a\r\ndisgrace to the human race. A German musician,\r\nequally unknowing, is called upon to\r\nshoot the perfidious Frenchman. Why cannot\r\nthe two men declare a mutual neutrality? Why\r\nnot leave war to those who like it and bring it\r\non? Yet if the two men declared a mutual neutrality\r\nthey would be shot by their compatriots.\r\nTo avoid this fate they try to shoot each other.\r\nIf the world loses the artist, not the musician,\r\nGermany rejoices; if the world loses the musician,\r\nnot the artist, France rejoices. No one\r\nremembers the loss to civilization, which is\r\nequal whichever is killed.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis is the politics of Bedlam. If the artist\r\nand the musician had been allowed to stand\r\naside from the war, nothing but unmitigated\r\ngood to mankind would have resulted. The\r\npower of the State, which makes this impossible,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_48\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e\r\nis a wholly evil thing, quite as evil as the\r\npower of the Church which in former days put\r\nmen to death for unorthodox thought. Yet if,\r\neven in time of peace, an international league\r\nwere founded to consist of Frenchmen and Germans\r\nin equal numbers, all pledged not to take\r\npart in war, the French State and the German\r\nState would persecute it with equal ferocity.\r\nBlind obedience, unlimited willingness to kill\r\nand die are exacted of the modern citizens of a\r\ndemocracy as much as of the Janizaries of medieval\r\nsultans or the secret agents of Oriental\r\ndespots.\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_5\" id=\"FNanchor_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe power of the State may be brought to\r\nbear, as it often is in England, through public\r\nopinion rather than through the laws. By oratory\r\nand the influence of the Press, public opinion\r\nis largely created by the State, and a tyrannous\r\npublic opinion is as great an enemy to\r\nliberty as tyrannous laws. If the young man\r\nwho will not fight finds that he is dismissed from\r\nhis employment, insulted in the streets, cold-shouldered\r\nby his friends, and thrown over with\r\nscorn by any woman who may formerly have\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_49\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e\r\nliked him, he will feel the penalty quite as hard\r\nto bear as a death sentence.\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_6\" id=\"FNanchor_6\"\u003e6\u003c/a\u003e A free community\r\nrequires not only legal freedom, but a tolerant\r\npublic opinion, an absence of that instinctive\r\ninquisition into our neighbors’ affairs\r\nwhich, under the guise of upholding a high\r\nmoral standard, enables good people to indulge\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_50\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e\r\nunconsciously a disposition to cruelty and persecution.\r\nThinking ill of others is not in itself\r\na good reason for thinking well of ourselves.\r\nBut so long as this is not recognized, and so\r\nlong as the State can manufacture public opinion,\r\nexcept in the rare cases where it is revolutionary,\r\npublic opinion must be reckoned as a\r\ndefinite part of the power of the State.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe power of the State outside its own borders\r\nis in the main derived from war or the\r\nthreat of war. Some power is derived from the\r\nability to persuade its citizens to lend money or\r\nnot to lend it, but this is unimportant in comparison\r\nwith the power derived from armies\r\nand navies. The external activity of the State—with\r\nexceptions so rare as to be negligible—is\r\nselfish. Sometimes selfishness is mitigated\r\nby the need of retaining the goodwill of other\r\nStates, but this only modifies the methods employed,\r\nnot the ends pursued. The ends pursued,\r\napart from mere defense against other\r\nStates, are, on the one hand, opportunities for\r\nsuccessful exploitation of weak or uncivilized\r\ncountries, on the other hand, power and prestige,\r\nwhich are considered more glorious and\r\nless material than money. In pursuit of these\r\nobjects, no State hesitates to put to death innumerable\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_51\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e\r\nforeigners whose happiness is not\r\ncompatible with exploitation or subjection, or\r\nto devastate territories into which it is thought\r\nnecessary to strike terror. Apart from the\r\npresent war, such acts have been performed\r\nwithin the last twenty years by many minor\r\nStates and by all the Great Powers\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_7\" id=\"FNanchor_7\"\u003e7\u003c/a\u003e except Austria;\r\nand in the case of Austria only the opportunity,\r\nnot the will, was lacking.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhy do men acquiesce in the power of the\r\nState? There are many reasons, some traditional,\r\nsome very present and pressing.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe traditional reason for obedience to the\r\nState is personal loyalty to the sovereign. European\r\nStates grew up under the feudal system,\r\nand were originally the several territories\r\nowned by feudal chiefs. But this source of\r\nobedience has decayed, and probably now\r\ncounts for little except in Japan, and to a lesser\r\nextent in Russia.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eTribal feeling, which always underlay loyalty\r\nto the sovereign, has remained as strong as it\r\never was, and is now the chief support for the\r\npower of the State. Almost every man finds\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_52\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e\r\nit essential to his happiness to feel himself a\r\nmember of a group, animated by common friendships\r\nand enmities and banded together for defense\r\nand attack. But such groups are of two\r\nkinds: there are those which are essentially enlargements\r\nof the family, and there are those\r\nwhich are based upon a conscious common purpose.\r\nNations belong to the first kind,\r\nChurches to the second. At times when men\r\nare profoundly swayed by creeds national divisions\r\ntend to break down, as they did in the\r\nwars of religion after the Reformation. At\r\nsuch times a common creed is a stronger bond\r\nthan a common nationality. To a much slighter\r\nextent, the same thing has occurred in the modern\r\nworld with the rise of socialism. Men who\r\ndisbelieve in private property, and feel the capitalist\r\nthe real enemy, have a bond which\r\ntranscends national divisions. It has not been\r\nfound strong enough to resist the passions\r\naroused by the present war, but it has made\r\nthem less bitter among socialists than among\r\nothers, and has kept alive the hope of a European\r\ncommunity to be reconstructed when the\r\nwar is over. In the main, however, the universal\r\ndisbelief in creeds has left tribal feeling\r\ntriumphant, and has made nationalism stronger\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_53\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthan at any previous period of the world’s history.\r\nA few sincere Christians, a few sincere\r\nsocialists, have found in their creed a force capable\r\nof resisting the assaults of national passion,\r\nbut they have been too few to influence\r\nthe course of events or even to cause serious\r\nanxiety to the Governments.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is chiefly tribal feeling that generates the\r\nunity of a national State, but it is not only\r\ntribal feeling that generates its strength. Its\r\nstrength results principally from two fears,\r\nneither of which is unreasonable: the fear of\r\ncrime and anarchy within, and the fear of aggression\r\nfrom without.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe internal orderliness of a civilized community\r\nis a great achievement, chiefly brought\r\nabout by the increased authority of the State.\r\nIt would be inconvenient if peaceable citizens\r\nwere constantly in imminent risk of being\r\nrobbed and murdered. Civilized life would become\r\nalmost impossible if adventurous people\r\ncould organize private armies for purposes of\r\nplunder. These conditions existed in the Middle\r\nAges, and have not passed away without a\r\ngreat struggle. It is thought by many—especially\r\nby the rich, who derive the greatest advantage\r\nfrom law and order—that any diminution\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_54\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e\r\nin the power of the State might bring back\r\na condition of universal anarchy. They regard\r\nstrikes as portents of dissolution. They are\r\nterrified by such organizations as the Confédération\r\nGénérale du Travail and the International\r\nWorkers of the World. They remember\r\nthe French Revolution, and feel a not unnatural\r\ndesire to keep their heads on their shoulders.\r\nThey dread particularly any political\r\ntheory which seems to excuse private crimes,\r\nsuch as sabotage and political assassination.\r\nAgainst these dangers they see no protection\r\nexcept the maintenance of the authority of the\r\nState, and the belief that all resistance to the\r\nState is wicked.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eFear of the danger within is enhanced by\r\nfear of the danger without. Every State is\r\nexposed at all times to the risk of foreign invasion.\r\nNo means has hitherto been devised\r\nfor minimizing this risk except the increase of\r\narmaments. But the armaments which are\r\nnominally intended to repel invasion may also\r\nbe used to invade. And so the means adopted\r\nto diminish the external fear have the effect of\r\nincreasing it, and of enormously enhancing the\r\ndestructiveness of war when it does break out.\r\nIn this way a reign of terror becomes universal,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_55\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e\r\nand the State acquires everywhere something\r\nof the character of the Comité du Salut\r\nPublic.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe tribal feeling out of which the State develops\r\nis natural, and the fear by which the\r\nState is strengthened is reasonable under present\r\ncircumstances. And in addition to these\r\ntwo, there is a third source of strength in a national\r\nState, namely patriotism in its religious\r\naspect.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePatriotism is a very complex feeling, built\r\nup out of primitive instincts and highly intellectual\r\nconvictions. There is love of home and\r\nfamily and friends, making us peculiarly anxious\r\nto preserve our own country from invasion.\r\nThere is the mild instinctive liking for compatriots\r\nas against foreigners. There is pride,\r\nwhich is bound up with the success of the community\r\nto which we feel that we belong. There\r\nis a belief, suggested by pride but reinforced\r\nby history, that one’s own nation represents a\r\ngreat tradition and stands for ideals that are\r\nimportant to the human race. But besides all\r\nthese, there is another element, at once nobler\r\nand more open to attack, an element of worship,\r\nof willing sacrifice, of joyful merging of the individual\r\nlife in the life of the nation. This religious\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_56\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e\r\nelement in patriotism is essential to the\r\nstrength of the State, since it enlists the best\r\nthat is in most men on the side of national sacrifice.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe religious element in patriotism is reinforced\r\nby education, especially by a knowledge\r\nof the history and literature of one’s own country,\r\nprovided it is not accompanied by much\r\nknowledge of the history and literature of other\r\ncountries. In every civilized country all instruction\r\nof the young emphasizes the merits\r\nof their own nation and the faults of other nations.\r\nIt comes to be universally believed that\r\none’s own nation, because of its superiority, deserves\r\nsupport in a quarrel, however the quarrel\r\nmay have originated. This belief is so genuine\r\nand deep that it makes men endure patiently,\r\nalmost gladly, the losses and hardships\r\nand sufferings entailed by war. Like all sincerely\r\nbelieved religions, it gives an outlook on\r\nlife, based upon instinct but sublimating it,\r\ncausing a devotion to an end greater than any\r\npersonal end, but containing many personal\r\nends as it were in solution.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePatriotism as a religion is unsatisfactory because\r\nof its lack of universality. The good at\r\nwhich it aims is a good for one’s own nation\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_57\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e\r\nonly, not for all mankind. The desires which\r\nit inspires in an Englishman are not the same\r\nas the desires which it inspires in a German. A\r\nworld full of patriots may be a world full of\r\nstrife. The more intensely a nation believes\r\nin its patriotism, the more fanatically indifferent\r\nit will become to the damage suffered by\r\nother nations. When once men have learnt to\r\nsubordinate their own good to the good of a\r\nlarger whole, there can be no valid reason for\r\nstopping short of the human race. It is the admixture\r\nof national pride that makes it so easy\r\nin practice for men’s impulses towards sacrifice\r\nto stop short at the frontiers of their own country.\r\nIt is this admixture that poisons patriotism,\r\nand makes it inferior, as a religion, to beliefs\r\nwhich aim at the salvation of all mankind.\r\nWe cannot avoid having more love for our own\r\ncountry than for other countries, and there is\r\nno reason why we should wish to avoid it, any\r\nmore than we should wish to love all individual\r\nmen and women equally. But any adequate religion\r\nwill lead us to temper inequality of affection\r\nby love of justice, and to universalize\r\nour aims by realizing the common needs of man.\r\nThis change was effected by Christianity in\r\nJudaism, and must be effected in any merely national\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_58\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e\r\nreligion before it can be purged of evil.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn practice, patriotism has many other enemies\r\nto contend with. Cosmopolitanism cannot\r\nfail to grow as men acquire more knowledge\r\nof foreign countries by education and travel.\r\nThere is also a kind of individualism which is\r\ncontinually increasing, a realization that every\r\nman ought to be as nearly free as possible to\r\nchoose his own ends, not compelled by a geographical\r\naccident to pursue ends forced upon\r\nhim by the community. Socialism, syndicalism,\r\nand anti-capitalist movements generally, are\r\nagainst patriotism in their tendency, since they\r\nmake men aware that the present State is\r\nlargely concerned in defending the privileges\r\nof the rich, and that many of the conflicts between\r\nStates have their origin in the financial\r\ninterests of a few plutocrats. This kind of opposition\r\nis perhaps temporary, a mere incident\r\nin the struggle of labor to acquire power.\r\nAustralia, where labor feels its triumph secure,\r\nis full of patriotism and militarism, based upon\r\ndetermination to prevent foreign labor from\r\nsharing the benefits of a privileged position. It\r\nis not unlikely that England might develop a\r\nsimilar nationalism if it became a socialist\r\nState. But it is probable that such nationalism\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_59\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwould be purely defensive. Schemes of foreign\r\naggression, entailing great loss of life and\r\nwealth in the nation which adopts them, would\r\nhardly be initiated except by those whose instincts\r\nof dominion have been sharpened\r\nthrough the power derived from private property\r\nand the institutions of the capitalist State.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe evil wrought in the modern world by the\r\nexcessive power of the State is very great, and\r\nvery little recognized.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe chief harm wrought by the State is promotion\r\nof efficiency in war. If all States increase\r\ntheir strength, the balance of power is\r\nunchanged, and no one State has a better chance\r\nof victory than before. And when the means of\r\noffense exist, even though their original purpose\r\nmay have been defensive, the temptation\r\nto use them is likely, sooner or later, to prove\r\noverwhelming. In this way the very measures\r\nwhich promoted security within the borders of\r\nthe State promote insecurity elsewhere. It is\r\nof the essence of the State to suppress violence\r\nwithin and to facilitate it without. The State\r\nmakes an entirely artificial division of mankind\r\nand of our duties toward them: towards one\r\ngroup we are bound by the law, towards the\r\nother only by the prudence of highwaymen.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_60\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e\r\nThe State is rendered evil by its exclusions, and\r\nby the fact that, whenever it embarks upon aggressive\r\nwar, it becomes a combination of men\r\nfor murder and robbery. The present system\r\nis irrational, since external and internal anarchy\r\nmust be both right or both wrong. It is\r\nsupported because, so long as others adopt it,\r\nit is thought the only road to safety, and because\r\nit secures the pleasures of triumph and\r\ndominion, which cannot be obtained in a good\r\ncommunity. If these pleasures were no longer\r\nsought, or no longer possible to obtain, the problem\r\nof securing safety from invasion would not\r\nbe difficult.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eApart from war, the modern great State is\r\nharmful from its vastness and the resulting\r\nsense of individual helplessness. The citizen\r\nwho is out of sympathy with the aims of the\r\nState, unless he is a man of very rare gifts, cannot\r\nhope to persuade the State to adopt purposes\r\nwhich seem to him better. Even in a\r\ndemocracy, all questions except a very few are\r\ndecided by a small number of officials and eminent\r\nmen; and even the few questions which are\r\nleft to the popular vote are decided by a diffused\r\nmass-psychology, not by individual initiative.\r\nThis is especially noticeable in a country\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_61\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e\r\nlike the United States, where, in spite of democracy,\r\nmost men have a sense of almost complete\r\nimpotence in regard to all large issues.\r\nIn so vast a country the popular will is like one\r\nof the forces of Nature, and seems nearly as\r\nmuch outside the control of any one man. This\r\nstate of things leads, not only in America but\r\nin all large States, to something of the weariness\r\nand discouragement that we associate with\r\nthe Roman Empire. Modern States, as opposed\r\nto the small city States of ancient Greece\r\nor medieval Italy, leave little room for initiative,\r\nand fail to develop in most men any sense\r\nof ability to control their political destinies.\r\nThe few men who achieve power in such States\r\nare men of abnormal ambition and thirst for\r\ndominion, combined with skill in cajolery and\r\nsubtlety in negotiation. All the rest are\r\ndwarfed by knowledge of their own impotence.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA curious survival from the old monarchical\r\nidea of the State is the belief that there is some\r\npeculiar wickedness in a wish to secede on the\r\npart of any section of the population. If Ireland\r\nor Poland desires independence, it is\r\nthought obvious that this desire must be strenuously\r\nresisted, and any attempt to secure it is\r\ncondemned as “high treason.” The only instance\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_62\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e\r\nto the contrary that I can remember is\r\nthe separation of Norway and Sweden, which\r\nwas commended but not imitated. In other\r\ncases, nothing but defeat in war has induced\r\nStates to part with territory: although this attitude\r\nis taken for granted, it is not one which\r\nwould be adopted if the State had better ends\r\nin view. The reason for its adoption is that\r\nthe chief end of almost all great States is power,\r\nespecially power in war. And power in war is\r\noften increased by the inclusion of unwilling\r\ncitizens. If the well-being of the citizens were\r\nthe end in view, the question whether a certain\r\narea should be included, or should form a separate\r\nState, would be left freely to the decision\r\nof that area. If this principle were adopted,\r\none of the main reasons for war would be obviated,\r\nand one of the most tyrannical elements\r\nin the State would be removed.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe principal source of the harm done by the\r\nState is the fact that power is its chief end.\r\nThis is not the case in America, because America\r\nis safe against aggression;\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_8\" id=\"FNanchor_8\"\u003e8\u003c/a\u003e but in all other\r\ngreat nations the chief aim of the State is to\r\npossess the greatest possible amount of external\r\nforce. To this end, the liberty of the citizens\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_63\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e\r\nis curtailed, and anti-militarist propaganda\r\nis severely punished. This attitude is\r\nrooted in pride and fear: pride, which refuses\r\nto be conciliatory, and fear, which dreads the\r\nresults of foreign pride conflicting with our own\r\npride. It seems something of a historical accident\r\nthat these two passions, which by no\r\nmeans exhaust the political passions of the ordinary\r\nman, should so completely determine the\r\nexternal policy of the State. Without pride,\r\nthere would be no occasion for fear: fear on\r\nthe part of one nation is due to the supposed\r\npride of another nation. Pride of dominion,\r\nunwillingness to decide disputes otherwise than\r\nby force or the threat of force, is a habit of\r\nmind greatly encouraged by the possession of\r\npower. Those who have long been in the habit\r\nof exercising power become autocratic and quarrelsome,\r\nincapable of regarding an equal otherwise\r\nthan as a rival. It is notorious that head\r\nmasters’ conferences are more liable to violent\r\ndisagreements than most similar bodies: each\r\nhead master tries to treat the others as he treats\r\nhis own boys; they resent such treatment, and\r\nhe resents their resentment. Men who have the\r\nhabit of authority are peculiarly unfit for\r\nfriendly negotiation; but the official relations\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_64\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof States are mainly in the hands of men with\r\na great deal of authority in their own country.\r\nThis is, of course, more particularly the case\r\nwhere there is a monarch who actually governs.\r\nIf is less true where there is a governing oligarchy,\r\nand still less true where there is some\r\napproach to real democracy. But it is true to\r\na considerable extent in all countries, because\r\nPrime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries are\r\nnecessarily men in authority. The first step\r\ntowards remedying this state of things is a genuine\r\ninterest in foreign affairs on the part of\r\nthe ordinary citizen, and an insistence that national\r\npride shall not be allowed to jeopardize\r\nhis other interests. During war, when he is\r\nroused, he is willing to sacrifice everything to\r\npride; but in quiet times he will be far more\r\nready than men in authority to realize that foreign\r\naffairs, like private concerns, ought to be\r\nsettled amicably according to principles, not\r\nbrutally by force or the threat of force.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe effect of personal bias in the men who\r\nactually compose the Government may be seen\r\nvery clearly in labor disputes. French syndicalists\r\naffirm that the State is simply a product\r\nof capitalism, a part of the weapons which capital\r\nemploys in its conflict with labor. Even in\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_65\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e\r\ndemocratic States there is much to bear out this\r\nview. In strikes it is common to order out the\r\nsoldiers to coerce the strikers; although the employers\r\nare much fewer, and much easier to coerce,\r\nthe soldiers are never employed against\r\nthem. When labor troubles paralyze the industry\r\nof a country, it is the men who are thought\r\nto be unpatriotic, not the masters, though\r\nclearly the responsibility belongs to both sides.\r\nThe chief reason for this attitude on the part\r\nof Governments is that the men composing them\r\nbelong, by their success if not by their origin,\r\nto the same class as the great employers of\r\nlabor. Their bias and their associates combine\r\nto make them view strikes and lockouts from\r\nthe standpoint of the rich. In a democracy\r\npublic opinion and the need of conciliating political\r\nsupporters partially correct these plutocratic\r\ninfluences, but the correction is always\r\nonly partial. And the same influences which\r\nwarp the views of Governments on labor questions\r\nalso warp their views on foreign affairs,\r\nwith the added disadvantage that the ordinary\r\ncitizen has much fewer means of arriving at an\r\nindependent judgment.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe excessive power of the State, partly\r\nthrough internal oppression, but principally\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_66\"\u003e66\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthrough war and the fear of war, is one of the\r\nchief causes of misery in the modern world,\r\nand one of the main reasons for the discouragement\r\nwhich prevents men from growing to their\r\nfull mental stature. Some means of curing\r\nthis excessive power must be found if men are\r\nnot to be organized into despair, as they were\r\nin the Roman Empire.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe State has one purpose which is on the\r\nwhole good, namely, the substitution of law for\r\nforce in the relations of men. But this purpose\r\ncan only be fully achieved by a world-State,\r\nwithout which international relations cannot be\r\nmade subject to law. And although law is better\r\nthan force, law is still not the best way of\r\nsettling disputes. Law is too static, too much\r\non the side of what is decaying, too little on\r\nthe side of what is growing. So long as law is\r\nin theory supreme, it will have to be tempered,\r\nfrom time to time, by internal revolution and\r\nexternal war. These can only be prevented by\r\nperpetual readiness to alter the law in accordance\r\nwith the present balance of forces. If this\r\nis not done, the motives for appealing to force\r\nwill sooner or later become irresistible. A\r\nworld-State or federation of States, if it is to\r\nbe successful, will have to decide questions, not\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_67\"\u003e67\u003c/span\u003e\r\nby the legal maxims which would be applied by\r\nthe Hague tribunal, but as far as possible in\r\nthe same sense in which they would be decided\r\nby war. The function of authority should be\r\nto render the appeal to force unnecessary, not\r\nto give decisions contrary to those which would\r\nbe reached by force.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis view may be thought by some to be immoral.\r\nIt may be said that the object of civilization\r\nshould be to secure justice, not to give\r\nthe victory to the strong. But when this antithesis\r\nis allowed to pass, it is forgotten that\r\nlove of justice may itself set force in motion.\r\nA Legislature which wishes to decide an issue\r\nin the same way as it would be decided if there\r\nwere an appeal to force will necessarily take\r\naccount of justice, provided justice is so flagrantly\r\non one side that disinterested parties\r\nare willing to take up the quarrel. If a strong\r\nman assaults a weak man in the streets of London,\r\nthe balance of force is on the side of the\r\nweak man, because, even if the police did not\r\nappear, casual passers-by would step in to defend\r\nhim. It is sheer cant to speak of a contest\r\nof might against right, and at the same time to\r\nhope for a victory of the right. If the contest\r\nis really between might and right, that \u003cem\u003emeans\u003c/em\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_68\"\u003e68\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthat right will be beaten. What is obscurely\r\nintended, when this phrase is used, is that the\r\nstronger side is only rendered stronger by\r\nmen’s sense of right. But men’s sense of right\r\nis very subjective, and is only one factor in deciding\r\nthe preponderance of force. What is desirable\r\nin a Legislature is, not that it should decide\r\nby its personal sense of right, but that it\r\nshould decide in a way which is felt to make an\r\nappeal to force unnecessary.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eHaving considered what the State ought not\r\nto do, I come now to what it ought to do.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eApart from war and the preservation of internal\r\norder, there are certain more positive\r\nfunctions which the State performs, and certain\r\nothers which it ought to perform.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe may lay down two principles as regards\r\nthese positive functions.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eFirst: there are matters in which the welfare\r\nof the whole community depends upon the practically\r\nuniversal attainment of a certain minimum;\r\nin such cases the State has the right to\r\ninsist upon this minimum being attained.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eSecondly: there are ways in which, by insisting\r\nupon the maintenance of law, the State, if\r\nit does nothing further, renders possible various\r\nforms of injustice which would otherwise\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_69\"\u003e69\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbe prevented by the anger of their victims.\r\nSuch injustices ought, as far as possible, to be\r\nprevented by the State.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe most obvious example of a matter where\r\nthe general welfare depends upon a universal\r\nminimum is sanitation and the prevention of\r\ninfectious diseases. A single case of plague,\r\nif it is neglected, may cause disaster to a whole\r\ncommunity. No one can reasonably maintain,\r\non general grounds of liberty, that a man suffering\r\nfrom plague ought to be left free to\r\nspread infection far and wide. Exactly similar\r\nconsiderations apply to drainage, notification\r\nof fevers, and kindred matters. The interference\r\nwith liberty remains an evil, but in some\r\ncases it is clearly a smaller evil than the spread\r\nof disease which liberty would produce. The\r\nstamping out of malaria and yellow fever by\r\ndestroying mosquitoes is perhaps the most striking\r\nexample of the good which can be done in\r\nthis way. But when the good is small or doubtful,\r\nand the interference with liberty is great,\r\nit becomes better to endure a certain amount of\r\npreventable disease rather than suffer a scientific\r\ntyranny.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eCompulsory education comes under the same\r\nhead as sanitation. The existence of ignorant\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_70\"\u003e70\u003c/span\u003e\r\nmasses in a population is a danger to the community;\r\nwhen a considerable percentage are illiterate,\r\nthe whole machinery of government has\r\nto take account of the fact. Democracy in its\r\nmodern form would be quite impossible in a nation\r\nwhere many men cannot read. But in this\r\ncase there is not the same need of absolute universality\r\nas in the case of sanitary measures.\r\nThe gipsies, whose mode of life has been rendered\r\nalmost impossible by the education authorities,\r\nmight well have been allowed to remain\r\na picturesque exception. But apart from\r\nsuch rather unimportant exceptions, the argument\r\nfor compulsory education is irresistible.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat the State does for the care of children\r\nat present is less than what ought to be done,\r\nnot more. Children are not capable of looking\r\nafter their own interests, and parental responsibility\r\nis in many ways inadequate. It is clear\r\nthat the State alone can insist upon the children\r\nbeing provided with the minimum of knowledge\r\nand health which, for the time being, satisfies\r\nthe conscience of the community.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe encouragement of scientific research is\r\nanother matter which comes rightly within the\r\npowers of the State, because the benefits of discoveries\r\naccrue to the community, while the investigations\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_71\"\u003e71\u003c/span\u003e\r\nare expensive and never individually\r\ncertain of achieving any result. In this\r\nmatter, Great Britain lags behind all other civilized\r\ncountries.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe second kind of powers which the State\r\nought to possess are those that aim at diminishing\r\neconomic injustice. It is this kind that\r\nhas been emphasized by socialists. The law\r\ncreates or facilitates monopolies, and monopolies\r\nare able to exact a toll from the community.\r\nThe most glaring example is the private\r\nownership of land. Railways are at present\r\ncontrolled by the State, since rates are fixed by\r\nlaw; and it is clear that if they were uncontrolled,\r\nthey would acquire a dangerous degree\r\nof power.\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_9\" id=\"FNanchor_9\"\u003e9\u003c/a\u003e Such considerations, if they stood\r\nalone, would justify complete socialism. But I\r\nthink justice, by itself, is, like law, too static to\r\nbe made a supreme political principle: it does\r\nnot, when it has been achieved, contain any\r\nseeds of new life or any impetus to development.\r\nFor this reason, when we wish to remedy\r\nan injustice, it is important to consider\r\nwhether, in so doing, we shall be destroying the\r\nincentive to some form of vigorous action which\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_72\"\u003e72\u003c/span\u003e\r\nis on the whole useful to the community. No\r\nsuch form of action, so far as I can see, is associated\r\nwith private ownership of land or of\r\nany other source of economic rent; if this is the\r\ncase, it follows that the State ought to be the\r\nprimary recipient of rent.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIf all these powers are allowed to the State,\r\nwhat becomes of the attempt to rescue individual\r\nliberty from its tyranny?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis is part of the general problem which\r\nconfronts all those who still care for the ideals\r\nwhich inspired liberalism, namely the problem\r\nof combining liberty and personal initiative\r\nwith organization. Politics and economics are\r\nmore and more dominated by vast organizations,\r\nin face of which the individual is in danger of\r\nbecoming powerless. The State is the greatest\r\nof these organizations, and the most serious\r\nmenace to liberty. And yet it seems that many\r\nof its functions must be extended rather than\r\ncurtailed.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere is one way by which organization and\r\nliberty can be combined, and that is, by securing\r\npower for voluntary organizations, consisting\r\nof men who have chosen to belong to them\r\nbecause they embody some purpose which all\r\ntheir members consider important, not a purpose\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_73\"\u003e73\u003c/span\u003e\r\nimposed by accident or outside force. The\r\nState, being geographical, cannot be a wholly\r\nvoluntary association, but for that very reason\r\nthere is need of a strong public opinion to restrain\r\nit from a tyrannical use of its powers.\r\nThis public opinion, in most matters, can only\r\nbe secured by combinations of those who have\r\ncertain interests or desires in common.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe positive purposes of the State, over and\r\nabove the preservation of order, ought as far\r\nas possible to be carried out, not by the State\r\nitself, but by independent organizations, which\r\nshould be left completely free so long as they\r\nsatisfied the State that they were not falling\r\nbelow a necessary minimum. This occurs to\r\na certain limited extent at present in regard to\r\nelementary education. The universities, also,\r\nmay be regarded as acting for the State in the\r\nmatter of higher education and research, except\r\nthat in their case no minimum of achievement\r\nis exacted. In the economic sphere, the State\r\nought to exercise control, but ought to leave\r\ninitiative to others. There is every reason to\r\nmultiply opportunities of initiative, and to give\r\nthe greatest possible share of initiative to each\r\nindividual, for if this is not done there will be\r\na general sense of impotence and discouragement.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_74\"\u003e74\u003c/span\u003e\r\nThere ought to be a constant endeavor\r\nto leave the more positive aspects of government\r\nin the hands of voluntary organizations,\r\nthe purpose of the State being merely to exact\r\nefficiency and to secure an amicable settlement\r\nof disputes, whether within or without its own\r\nborders. And with this ought to be combined\r\nthe greatest possible toleration of exceptions\r\nand the least possible insistence upon uniform\r\nsystem.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA good deal may be achieved through local\r\ngovernment by trades as well as by areas. This\r\nis the most original idea in syndicalism, and it\r\nis valuable as a check upon the tyranny which\r\nthe community may be tempted to exercise over\r\ncertain classes of its members. All strong organizations\r\nwhich embody a sectional public\r\nopinion, such as trade unions, coöperative societies,\r\nprofessions, and universities, are to be\r\nwelcomed as safeguards of liberty and opportunities\r\nfor initiative. And there is need of a\r\nstrong public opinion in favor of liberty itself.\r\nThe old battles for freedom of thought and freedom\r\nof speech, which it was thought had been\r\ndefinitively won, will have to be fought all over\r\nagain, since most men are only willing to accord\r\nfreedom to opinions which happen to be popular.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_75\"\u003e75\u003c/span\u003e\r\nInstitutions cannot preserve liberty unless\r\nmen realize that liberty is precious and\r\nare willing to exert themselves to keep it\r\nalive.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere is a traditional objection to every \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003eimperium\r\nin imperio\u003c/i\u003e, but this is only the jealousy\r\nof the tyrant. In actual fact, the modern State\r\ncontains many organizations which it cannot defeat,\r\nexcept perhaps on rare occasions when public\r\nopinion is roused against them. Mr. Lloyd\r\nGeorge’s long fight with the medical profession\r\nover the Insurance Act was full of Homeric\r\nfluctuations of fortune. The Welsh miners recently\r\nrouted the whole power of the State,\r\nbacked by an excited nation. As for the financiers,\r\nno Government would dream of a conflict\r\nwith them. When all other classes are exhorted\r\nto patriotism, they are allowed their 4½\r\nper cent. and an increase of interest on their\r\nconsols. It is well understood on all sides that\r\nan appeal to \u003cem\u003etheir\u003c/em\u003e patriotism would show gross\r\nignorance of the world. It is against the\r\ntraditions of the State to extort their money\r\nby threatening to withdraw police protection.\r\nThis is not due to the difficulty of such a measure,\r\nbut only to the fact that great wealth wins\r\ngenuine admiration from us all, and we cannot\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_76\"\u003e76\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbear to think of a very rich man being treated\r\nwith disrespect.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe existence of strong organizations within\r\nthe State, such as trade unions, is not undesirable\r\nexcept from the point of view of the official\r\nwho wishes to wield unlimited power, or of the\r\nrival organizations, such as federations of employers,\r\nwhich would prefer a disorganized adversary.\r\nIn view of the vastness of the State,\r\nmost men can find little political outlet for initiative\r\nexcept in subordinate organizations\r\nformed for specific purposes. Without an outlet\r\nfor political initiative, men lose their social\r\nvigor and their interest in public affairs: they\r\nbecome a prey to corrupt wire-pullers, or to\r\nsensation-mongers who have the art of capturing\r\na tired and vagrant attention. The cure\r\nfor this is to increase rather than diminish the\r\npowers of voluntary organizations, to give\r\nevery man a sphere of political activity small\r\nenough for his interest and his capacity, and\r\nto confine the functions of the State, as far as\r\npossible, to the maintenance of peace among\r\nrival interests. The essential merit of the\r\nState is that it prevents the internal use of force\r\nby private persons. Its essential demerits are,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_77\"\u003e77\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthat it promotes the external use of force, and\r\nthat, by its great size, it makes each individual\r\nfeel impotent even in a democracy. I shall return\r\nin a later lecture to the question of preventing\r\nwar. The prevention of the sense of\r\nindividual impotence cannot be achieved by a\r\nreturn to the small City State, which would be\r\nas reactionary as a return to the days before\r\nmachinery. It must be achieved by a method\r\nwhich is in the direction of present tendencies.\r\nSuch a method would be the increasing devolution\r\nof positive political initiative to bodies\r\nformed voluntarily for specific purposes, leaving\r\nthe State rather in the position of a federal\r\nauthority or a court of arbitration. The State\r\nwill then confine itself to insisting upon \u003cem\u003esome\u003c/em\u003e\r\nsettlement of rival interests: its only principle\r\nin deciding what is the right settlement will be\r\nan attempt to find the measure most acceptable,\r\non the whole, to all the parties concerned.\r\nThis is the direction in which democratic States\r\nnaturally tend, except in so far as they are\r\nturned aside by war or the fear of war. So\r\nlong as war remains a daily imminent danger,\r\nthe State will remain a Moloch, sacrificing\r\nsometimes the life of the individual, and always\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_78\"\u003e78\u003c/span\u003e\r\nhis unfettered development, to the barren struggle\r\nfor mastery in the competition with other\r\nStates. In internal as in external affairs, the\r\nworst enemy of freedom is war.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_79\"\u003e79\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter\"\u003e\r\n\u003ch2 class=\"vspace\" id=\"III\"\u003eIII\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003cspan class=\"subhead\"\u003eWAR AS AN INSTITUTION\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"drop-cap\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap1\"\u003eIn\u003c/span\u003e spite of the fact that most nations at most\r\ntimes, are at peace, war is one of the permanent\r\ninstitutions of all free communities,\r\njust as Parliament is one of our permanent institutions\r\nin spite of the fact that it is not always\r\nsitting. It is war as a permanent institution\r\nthat I wish to consider: why men tolerate\r\nit; why they ought not to tolerate it; what\r\nhope there is of their coming not to tolerate\r\nit; and how they could abolish it if they wished\r\nto do so.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWar is a conflict between two groups, each\r\nof which attempts to kill and maim as many\r\nas possible of the other group in order to\r\nachieve some object which it desires. The object\r\nis generally either power or wealth. It is\r\na pleasure to exercise authority over other men,\r\nand it is a pleasure to live on the produce of\r\nother men’s labor. The victor in war can enjoy\r\nmore of these delights than the vanquished.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_80\"\u003e80\u003c/span\u003e\r\nBut war, like all other natural activities, is not\r\nso much prompted by the end which it has in\r\nview as by an impulse to the activity itself.\r\nVery often men desire an end, not on its own\r\naccount, but because their nature demands the\r\nactions which will lead to the end. And so it is\r\nin this case: the ends to be achieved by war appear\r\nin prospect far more important than they\r\nwill appear when they are realized, because\r\nwar itself is a fulfilment of one side of our nature.\r\nIf men’s actions sprang from desires for\r\nwhat would in fact bring happiness, the purely\r\nrational arguments against war would have\r\nlong ago put an end to it. What makes war\r\ndifficult to suppress is that it springs from an\r\nimpulse, rather than from a calculation of the\r\nadvantages to be derived from war.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWar differs from the employment of force\r\nby the police through the fact that the actions\r\nof the police are ordered by a neutral authority,\r\nwhereas in war it is the parties to the dispute\r\nthemselves who set force in motion. This\r\ndistinction is not absolute, since the State is\r\nnot always wholly neutral in internal disturbances.\r\nWhen strikers are shot down, the State\r\nis taking the side of the rich. When opinions\r\nadverse to the existing State are punished, the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_81\"\u003e81\u003c/span\u003e\r\nState is obviously one of the parties to the dispute.\r\nAnd from the suppression of individual\r\nopinion up to civil war all gradations are possible.\r\nBut broadly speaking, force employed\r\naccording to laws previously laid down by the\r\ncommunity as a whole may be distinguished\r\nfrom force employed by one community against\r\nanother on occasions of which the one community\r\nis the sole judge. I have dwelt upon\r\nthis difference because I do not think the use\r\nof force by the police can be wholly eliminated,\r\nand I think a similar use of force in international\r\naffairs is the best hope of permanent\r\npeace. At present, international affairs are\r\nregulated by the principle that a nation must\r\nnot intervene unless its interests are involved:\r\ndiplomatic usage forbids intervention for the\r\nmere maintenance of international law. America\r\nmay protest when American citizens are\r\ndrowned by German submarines, but must not\r\nprotest when no American citizens are involved.\r\nThe case would be analogous in internal affairs\r\nif the police would only interfere with murder\r\nwhen it happened that a policeman had been\r\nkilled. So long as this principle prevails in the\r\nrelations of States, the power of neutrals cannot\r\nbe effectively employed to prevent war.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_82\"\u003e82\u003c/span\u003e\r\nIn every civilized country two forces coöperate\r\nto produce war. In ordinary times some\r\nmen—usually a small proportion of the population—are\r\nbellicose: they predict war, and obviously\r\nare not unhappy in the prospect. So\r\nlong as war is not imminent, the bulk of the\r\npopulation pay little attention to these men, and\r\ndo not actively either support or oppose them.\r\nBut when war begins to seem very near, a war fever\r\nseizes hold of people, and those who were\r\nalready bellicose find themselves enthusiastically\r\nsupported by all but an insignificant minority.\r\nThe impulses which inspire war fever\r\nare rather different from those which make\r\nsome men bellicose in ordinary times. Only educated\r\nmen are likely to be warlike at ordinary\r\ntimes, since they alone are vividly aware of\r\nother countries or of the part which their own\r\nnation might play in the affairs of the world.\r\nBut it is only their knowledge, not their nature,\r\nthat distinguishes them from their more ignorant\r\ncompatriots.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eTo take the most obvious example, German\r\npolicy, in recent years before the war, was not\r\naverse from war, and not friendly to England.\r\nIt is worth while to try to understand the state\r\nof mind from which this policy sprang.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_83\"\u003e83\u003c/span\u003e\r\nThe men who direct German policy are, to\r\nbegin with, patriotic to an extent which is almost\r\nunknown in France and England. The interests\r\nof Germany appear to them unquestionably\r\nthe only interests they need take into account.\r\nWhat injury may, in pursuing those\r\ninterests, be done to other nations, what destruction\r\nmay be brought upon populations and\r\ncities, what irreparable damage may result to\r\ncivilization, it is not for them to consider. If\r\nthey can confer what they regard as benefits\r\nupon Germany, everything else is of no account.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe second noteworthy point about German\r\npolicy is that its conception of national welfare\r\nis mainly competitive. It is not the \u003cem\u003eintrinsic\u003c/em\u003e\r\nwealth of Germany, whether materially\r\nor mentally, that the rulers of Germany consider\r\nimportant: it is the \u003cem\u003ecomparative\u003c/em\u003e wealth\r\nin the competition with other civilized countries.\r\nFor this reason the destruction of good\r\nthings abroad appears to them almost as desirable\r\nas the creation of good things in Germany.\r\nIn most parts of the world the French are regarded\r\nas the most civilized of nations: their\r\nart and their literature and their way of life\r\nhave an attraction for foreigners which those\r\nof Germany do not have. The English have\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_84\"\u003e84\u003c/span\u003e\r\ndeveloped political liberty, and the art of maintaining\r\nan Empire with a minimum of coercion,\r\nin a way for which Germany, hitherto, has\r\nshown no aptitude. These are grounds for\r\nenvy, and envy wishes to destroy what is good\r\nin other countries. German militarists, quite\r\nrightly, judged that what was best in France\r\nand England would probably be destroyed by a\r\ngreat war, even if France and England were\r\nnot in the end defeated in the actual fighting.\r\nI have seen a list of young French writers\r\nkilled on the battlefield; probably the German\r\nauthorities have also seen it, and have reflected\r\nwith joy that another year of such losses will\r\ndestroy French literature for a generation—perhaps,\r\nthrough loss of tradition, for ever.\r\nEvery outburst against liberty in our more bellicose\r\nnewspapers, every incitement to persecution\r\nof defenseless Germans, every mark of\r\ngrowing ferocity in our attitude, must be read\r\nwith delight by German patriots, as proving\r\ntheir success in robbing us of our best, and in\r\nforcing us to imitate whatever is worst in Prussia.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut what the rulers of Germany have envied\r\nus most was power and wealth—the power derived\r\nfrom command of the seas and the straits,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_85\"\u003e85\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe wealth derived from a century of industrial\r\nsupremacy. In both these respects they feel\r\nthat their deserts are higher than ours. They\r\nhave devoted far more thought and skill to military\r\nand industrial organization. Their average\r\nof intelligence and knowledge is far superior;\r\ntheir capacity for pursuing an attainable\r\nend, unitedly and with forethought, is infinitely\r\ngreater. Yet we, merely (as they think) because\r\nwe had a start in the race, have achieved\r\na vastly larger Empire than they have, and an\r\nenormously greater control of capital. All this\r\nis unbearable; yet nothing but a great war can\r\nalter it.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBesides all these feelings, there is in many\r\nGermans, especially in those who know us best,\r\na hot hatred of us on account of our pride.\r\nFarinata degli Uberti surveyed Hell “\u003ci lang=\"it\"\u003ecome\r\navesse lo Inferno in gran dispitto\u003c/i\u003e.” Just so,\r\nby German accounts, English officer prisoners\r\nlook round them among their captors—holding\r\naloof, as though the enemy were noxious,\r\nunclean creatures, toads or slugs or centipedes,\r\nwhich a man does not touch willingly, and\r\nshakes off with loathing if he is forced to touch\r\nthem for a moment. It is easy to imagine how\r\nthe devils hated Farinata, and inflicted greater\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_86\"\u003e86\u003c/span\u003e\r\npains upon him than upon his neighbors, hoping\r\nto win recognition by some slight wincing\r\non his part, driven to frenzy by his continuing\r\nto behave as if they did not exist. In just the\r\nsame way the Germans are maddened by our\r\nspiritual immobility. At bottom we have regarded\r\nthe Germans as one regards flies on a\r\nhot day: they are a nuisance, one has to brush\r\nthem off, but it would not occur to one to be\r\nturned aside by them. Now that the initial certainty\r\nof victory has faded, we begin to be affected\r\ninwardly by the Germans. In time, if\r\nwe continue to fail in our military enterprises,\r\nwe shall realize that they are human beings, not\r\njust a tiresome circumstance. Then perhaps\r\nwe shall hate them with a hatred which they\r\nwill have no reason to resent. And from such\r\na hatred it will be only a short journey to a\r\ngenuine \u003ci lang=\"fr\"\u003erapprochement\u003c/i\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe problem which must be solved, if the future\r\nof the world is to be less terrible than its\r\npresent, is the problem of preventing nations\r\nfrom getting into the moods of England and\r\nGermany at the outbreak of the war. These\r\ntwo nations as they were at that moment might\r\nbe taken as almost mythical representatives of\r\npride and envy—cold pride and hot envy. Germany\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_87\"\u003e87\u003c/span\u003e\r\ndeclaimed passionately: “You, England,\r\nswollen and decrepit, you overshadow my\r\nwhole growth—your rotting branches keep the\r\nsun from shining upon me and the rain from\r\nnourishing me. Your spreading foliage must\r\nbe lopped, your symmetrical beauty must be\r\ndestroyed, that I too may have freedom to grow,\r\nthat my young vigor may no longer be\r\nimpeded by your decaying mass.” England,\r\nbored and aloof, unconscious of the claims of\r\noutside forces, attempted absent-mindedly to\r\nsweep away the upstart disturber of meditation;\r\nbut the upstart was not swept away, and\r\nremains so far with every prospect of making\r\ngood his claim. The claim and the resistance\r\nto it are alike folly. Germany had no good\r\nground for envy; we had no good ground for\r\nresisting whatever in Germany’s demands was\r\ncompatible with our continued existence. Is\r\nthere any method of averting such reciprocal\r\nfolly in the future?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI think if either the English or the Germans\r\nwere capable of thinking in terms of individual\r\nwelfare rather than national pride, they would\r\nhave seen that, at every moment during the war\r\nthe wisest course would have been to conclude\r\npeace at once, on the best terms that could have\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_88\"\u003e88\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbeen obtained. This course, I am convinced,\r\nwould have been the wisest for each separate\r\nnation, as well as for civilization in general.\r\nThe utmost evil that the enemy could inflict\r\nthrough an unfavorable peace would be a trifle\r\ncompared to the evil which all the nations inflict\r\nupon themselves by continuing to fight.\r\nWhat blinds us to this obvious fact is pride, the\r\npride which makes the acknowledgment of defeat\r\nintolerable, and clothes itself in the garb\r\nof reason by suggesting all kinds of evils which\r\nare supposed to result from admitting defeat.\r\nBut the only real evil of defeat is humiliation,\r\nand humiliation is subjective; we shall not feel\r\nhumiliated if we become persuaded that it was\r\na mistake to engage in the war, and that it is\r\nbetter to pursue other tasks not dependent upon\r\nworld-dominion. If either the English or the\r\nGermans could admit this inwardly, any peace\r\nwhich did not destroy national independence\r\ncould be accepted without real loss in the self-respect\r\nwhich is essential to a good life.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe mood in which Germany embarked upon\r\nthe war was abominable, but it was a mood\r\nfostered by the habitual mood of England. We\r\nhave prided ourselves upon our territory and\r\nour wealth; we have been ready at all times to\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_89\"\u003e89\u003c/span\u003e\r\ndefend by force of arms what we have conquered\r\nin India and Africa. If we had realized the\r\nfutility of empire, and had shown a willingness\r\nto yield colonies to Germany without waiting for\r\nthe threat of force, we might have been in a\r\nposition to persuade the Germans that their\r\nambitions were foolish, and that the respect of\r\nthe world was not to be won by an imperialist\r\npolicy. But by our resistance we showed that\r\nwe shared their standards. We, being in possession,\r\nbecame enamored of the \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003estatus quo\u003c/i\u003e.\r\nThe Germans were willing to make war to upset\r\nthe \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003estatus quo\u003c/i\u003e; we were willing to make war\r\nto prevent its being upset in Germany’s favor.\r\nSo convinced were we of the sacredness of the\r\n\u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003estatus quo\u003c/i\u003e that we never realized how advantageous\r\nit was to us, or how, by insisting upon\r\nit, we shared the responsibility for the war. In\r\na world where nations grow and decay, where\r\nforces change and populations become cramped,\r\nit is not possible or desirable to maintain the\r\n\u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003estatus quo\u003c/i\u003e for ever. If peace is to be preserved,\r\nnations must learn to accept unfavorable\r\nalterations of the map without feeling that\r\nthey must first be defeated in war, or that in\r\nyielding they incur a humiliation.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is the insistence of legalists and friends of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_90\"\u003e90\u003c/span\u003e\r\npeace upon the maintenance of the \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003estatus quo\u003c/i\u003e\r\nthat has driven Germany into militarism.\r\nGermany had as good a right to an Empire as\r\nany other Great Power, but could only acquire\r\nan Empire through war. Love of peace has\r\nbeen too much associated with a static conception\r\nof international relations. In economic\r\ndisputes we all know that whatever is vigorous\r\nin the wage-earning classes is opposed to “industrial\r\npeace,” because the existing distribution\r\nof wealth is felt to be unfair. Those who\r\nenjoy a privileged position endeavor to bolster\r\nup their claims by appealing to the desire for\r\npeace, and decrying those who promote strife\r\nbetween the classes. It never occurs to them\r\nthat by opposing changes without considering\r\nwhether they are just, the capitalists share the\r\nresponsibility for the class war. And in exactly\r\nthe same way England shares the responsibility\r\nfor Germany’s war. If actual war is\r\never to cease there will have to be political\r\nmethods of achieving the results which now\r\ncan only be achieved by successful fighting, and\r\nnations will have voluntarily to admit adverse\r\nclaims which appear just in the judgment of\r\nneutrals.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is only by some such admission, embodying\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_91\"\u003e91\u003c/span\u003e\r\nitself in a Parliament of the nations with\r\nfull power to alter the distribution of territory,\r\nthat militarism can be permanently overcome.\r\nIt may be that the present war will bring, in the\r\nWestern nations, a change of mood and outlook\r\nsufficient to make such an institution possible.\r\nIt may be that more wars and more destruction\r\nwill be necessary before the majority of civilized\r\nmen rebel against the brutality and futile\r\ndestruction of modern war. But unless our\r\nstandards of civilization and our powers of constructive\r\nthought are to be permanently lowered,\r\nI cannot doubt that, sooner or later,\r\nreason will conquer the blind impulses which\r\nnow lead nations into war. And if a large majority\r\nof the Great Powers had a firm determination\r\nthat peace should be preserved, there\r\nwould be no difficulty in devising diplomatic\r\nmachinery for the settlement of disputes, and\r\nin establishing educational systems which\r\nwould implant in the minds of the young an ineradicable\r\nhorror of the slaughter which they\r\nare now taught to admire.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBesides the conscious and deliberate forces\r\nleading to war, there are the inarticulate feelings\r\nof common men, which, in most civilized\r\ncountries, are always ready to burst into war\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_92\"\u003e92\u003c/span\u003e\r\nfever at the bidding of statesmen. If peace is\r\nto be secure, the readiness to catch war fever\r\nmust be somehow diminished. Whoever wishes\r\nto succeed in this must first understand what\r\nwar fever is and why it arises.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe men who have an important influence in\r\nthe world, whether for good or evil, are dominated\r\nas a rule by a threefold desire: they desire,\r\nfirst, an activity which calls fully into play\r\nthe faculties in which they feel that they excel;\r\nsecondly, the sense of successfully overcoming\r\nresistance; thirdly, the respect of others on account\r\nof their success. The third of these desires\r\nis sometimes absent: some men who have\r\nbeen great have been without the “last infirmity,”\r\nand have been content with their own\r\nsense of success, or merely with the joy of difficult\r\neffort. But as a rule all three are present.\r\nSome men’s talents are specialized, so\r\nthat their choice of activities is circumscribed\r\nby the nature of their faculties; other men have,\r\nin youth, such a wide range of possible aptitudes\r\nthat their choice is chiefly determined by the\r\nvarying degrees of respect which public opinion\r\ngives to different kinds of success.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe same desires, usually in a less marked\r\ndegree, exist in men who have no exceptional\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_93\"\u003e93\u003c/span\u003e\r\ntalents. But such men cannot achieve anything\r\nvery difficult by their individual efforts;\r\nfor them, as units, it is impossible to acquire\r\nthe sense of greatness or the triumph of strong\r\nresistance overcome. Their separate lives are\r\nunadventurous and dull. In the morning they\r\ngo to the office or the plow, in the evening\r\nthey return tired and silent, to the sober\r\nmonotony of wife and children. Believing that\r\nsecurity is the supreme good, they have insured\r\nagainst sickness and death, and have found an\r\nemployment where they have little fear of dismissal\r\nand no hope of any great rise. But security,\r\nonce achieved, brings a Nemesis of\r\nennui. Adventure, imagination, risk, also have\r\ntheir claims; but how can these claims be satisfied\r\nby the ordinary wage-earner? Even if it\r\nwere possible to satisfy them, the claims of\r\nwife and children have priority and must not be\r\nneglected.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eTo this victim of order and good organization\r\nthe realization comes, in some moment of\r\nsudden crisis, that he belongs to a nation, that\r\nhis nation may take risks, may engage in difficult\r\nenterprises, enjoy the hot passion of doubtful\r\ncombat, stimulate adventure and imagination\r\nby military expeditions to Mount Sinai and\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_94\"\u003e94\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe Garden of Eden. What his nation does, in\r\nsome sense, he does; what his nation suffers, he\r\nsuffers. The long years of private caution are\r\navenged by a wild plunge into public madness.\r\nAll the horrid duties of thrift and order and\r\ncare which he has learnt to fulfil in private are\r\nthought not to apply to public affairs: it is\r\npatriotic and noble to be reckless for the nation,\r\nthough it would be wicked to be reckless\r\nfor oneself. The old primitive passions, which\r\ncivilization has denied, surge up all the stronger\r\nfor repression. In a moment imagination and\r\ninstinct travel back through the centuries, and\r\nthe wild man of the woods emerges from the\r\nmental prison in which he has been confined.\r\nThis is the deeper part of the psychology of the\r\nwar fever.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut besides the irrational and instinctive element\r\nin the war fever, there is always also, if\r\nonly as a liberator of primitive impulse, a certain\r\namount of quasi-rational calculation and\r\nwhat is euphemistically called “thought.” The\r\nwar fever very seldom seizes a nation unless it\r\nbelieves that it will be victorious. Undoubtedly,\r\nunder the influence of excitement, men\r\nover-estimate their chances of success; but there\r\nis some proportion between what is hoped and\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_95\"\u003e95\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwhat a rational man would expect. Holland,\r\nthough quite as humane as England, had no\r\nimpulse to go to war on behalf of Belgium, because\r\nthe likelihood of disaster was so obviously\r\noverwhelming. The London populace, if\r\nthey had known how the war was going to develop,\r\nwould not have rejoiced as they did on\r\nthat August Bank Holiday long ago. A nation\r\nwhich has had a recent experience of war, and\r\nhas come to know that a war is almost always\r\nmore painful than it is expected to be at the\r\noutset, becomes much less liable to war fever\r\nuntil a new generation grows up. The element\r\nof rationality in war fever is recognized\r\nby Governments and journalists who desire\r\nwar, as may be seen by their invariably minimizing\r\nthe perils of a war which they wish to\r\nprovoke. At the beginning of the South African\r\nWar Sir William Butler was dismissed, apparently\r\nfor suggesting that sixty thousand\r\nmen and three months might not suffice to subdue\r\nthe Boer Republics. And when the war\r\nproved long and difficult, the nation turned\r\nagainst those who had made it. We may assume,\r\nI think, without attributing too great\r\na share to reason in human affairs, that a nation\r\nwould not suffer from war fever in a case\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_96\"\u003e96\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwhere every sane man could see that defeat was\r\nvery probable.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe importance of this lies in the fact that it\r\nwould make aggressive war very unlikely if its\r\nchances of success were very small. If the\r\npeace-loving nations were sufficiently strong to\r\nbe obviously capable of defeating the nations\r\nwhich were willing to wage aggressive war, the\r\npeace-loving nations might form an alliance and\r\nagree to fight jointly against any nation which\r\nrefused to submit its claims to an International\r\nCouncil. Before the present war we\r\nmight have reasonably hoped to secure the\r\npeace of the world in some such way; but the\r\nmilitary strength of Germany has shown that\r\nsuch a scheme has no great chance of success at\r\npresent. Perhaps at some not far distant date\r\nit may be made more feasible by developments\r\nof policy in America.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe economic and political forces which make\r\nfor war could be easily curbed if the will to\r\npeace existed strongly in all civilized nations.\r\nBut so long as the populations are liable to war\r\nfever, all work for peace must be precarious;\r\nand if war fever could not be aroused, political\r\nand economic forces would be powerless to produce\r\nany long or very destructive war. The\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_97\"\u003e97\u003c/span\u003e\r\nfundamental problem for the pacifist is to prevent\r\nthe impulse towards war which seizes\r\nwhole communities from time to time. And\r\nthis can only be done by far-reaching changes\r\nin education, in the economic structure of society,\r\nand in the moral code by which public\r\nopinion controls the lives of men and women.\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_10\" id=\"FNanchor_10\"\u003e10\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA great many of the impulses which now lead\r\nnations to go to war are in themselves essential\r\nto any vigorous or progressive life. Without\r\nimagination and love of adventure a society\r\nsoon becomes stagnant and begins to decay.\r\nConflict, provided it is not destructive and\r\nbrutal, is necessary in order to stimulate men’s\r\nactivities, and to secure the victory of what is\r\nliving over what is dead or merely traditional.\r\nThe wish for the triumph of one’s cause, the\r\nsense of solidarity with large bodies of men,\r\nare not things which a wise man will wish to\r\ndestroy. It is only the outcome in death and\r\ndestruction and hatred that is evil. The problem\r\nis, to keep these impulses, without making\r\nwar the outlet for them.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAll Utopias that have hitherto been constructed\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_98\"\u003e98\u003c/span\u003e\r\nare intolerably dull. Any man with\r\nany force in him would rather live in this world,\r\nwith all its ghastly horrors, than in Plato’s Republic\r\nor among Swift’s Houyhnhnms. The\r\nmen who make Utopias proceed upon a radically\r\nfalse assumption as to what constitutes a\r\ngood life. They conceive that it is possible to\r\nimagine a certain state of society and a certain\r\nway of life which should be once for all recognized\r\nas good, and should then continue for ever\r\nand ever. They do not realize that much the\r\ngreater part of a man’s happiness depends upon\r\nactivity, and only a very small remnant consists\r\nin passive enjoyment. Even the pleasures\r\nwhich do consist in enjoyment are only\r\nsatisfactory, to most men, when they come in\r\nthe intervals of activity. Social reformers, like\r\ninventors of Utopias, are apt to forget this very\r\nobvious fact of human nature. They aim\r\nrather at securing more leisure, and more opportunity\r\nfor enjoying it, than at making work\r\nitself more satisfactory, more consonant with\r\nimpulse, and a better outlet for creativeness and\r\nthe desire to employ one’s faculties. Work, in\r\nthe modern world, is, to almost all who depend\r\non earnings, mere work, not an embodiment of\r\nthe desire for activity. Probably this is to a\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_99\"\u003e99\u003c/span\u003e\r\nconsiderable extent inevitable. But in so far\r\nas it can be prevented something will be done\r\nto give a peaceful outlet to some of the impulses\r\nwhich lead to war.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt would, of course, be easy to bring about\r\npeace if there were no vigor in the world. The\r\nRoman Empire was pacific and unproductive;\r\nthe Athens of Pericles was the most productive\r\nand almost the most warlike community known\r\nto history. The only form of production in\r\nwhich our own age excels is science, and in\r\nscience Germany, the most warlike of Great\r\nPowers, is supreme. It is useless to multiply\r\nexamples; but it is plain that the very same\r\nvital energy which produces all that is best also\r\nproduces war and the love of war. This is the\r\nbasis of the opposition to pacifism felt by many\r\nmen whose aims and activities are by no means\r\nbrutal. Pacifism, in practice, too often expresses\r\nmerely lack of force, not the refusal to\r\nuse force in thwarting others. Pacifism, if it is\r\nto be both victorious and beneficent, must find\r\nan outlet, compatible with humane feeling, for\r\nthe vigor which now leads nations into war and\r\ndestruction.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis problem was considered by William\r\nJames in an admirable address on “The Moral\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_100\"\u003e100\u003c/span\u003e\r\nEquivalent of War,” delivered to a congress of\r\npacifists during the Spanish-American War of\r\n1898. His statement of the problem could not\r\nbe bettered; and so far as I know, he is the\r\nonly writer who has faced the problem adequately.\r\nBut his solution is not adequate; perhaps\r\nno adequate solution is possible. The\r\nproblem, however, is one of degree: every additional\r\npeaceful outlet for men’s energies diminishes\r\nthe force which urges nations towards\r\nwar, and makes war less frequent and less\r\nfierce. And as a question of degree, it is capable\r\nof more or less partial solutions.\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_11\" id=\"FNanchor_11\"\u003e11\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eEvery vigorous man needs some kind of contest,\r\nsome sense of resistance overcome, in order\r\nto feel that he is exercising his faculties.\r\nUnder the influence of economics, a theory has\r\ngrown up that what men desire is wealth; this\r\ntheory has tended to verify itself, because people’s\r\nactions are more often determined by\r\nwhat they think they desire than by what they\r\nreally desire. The less active members of a\r\ncommunity often do in fact desire wealth, since\r\nit enables them to gratify a taste for passive\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_101\"\u003e101\u003c/span\u003e\r\nenjoyment, and to secure respect without exertion.\r\nBut the energetic men who make great\r\nfortunes seldom desire the actual money: they\r\ndesire the sense of power through a contest,\r\nand the joy of successful activity. For this\r\nreason, those who are the most ruthless in making\r\nmoney are often the most willing to give it\r\naway; there are many notorious examples of\r\nthis among American millionaires. The only\r\nelement of truth in the economic theory that\r\nthese men are actuated by desire for money is\r\nthis: owing to the fact that money is what is\r\n\u003cem\u003ebelieved\u003c/em\u003e to be desirable, the making of money\r\nis recognized as the test of success. What is desired\r\nis visible and indubitable success; but this\r\ncan only be achieved by being one of the few\r\nwho reach a goal which many men would wish to\r\nreach. For this reason, public opinion has a\r\ngreat influence in directing the activities of\r\nvigorous men. In America a millionaire is\r\nmore respected than a great artist; this leads\r\nmen who might become either the one or the\r\nother to choose to become millionaires. In\r\nRenaissance Italy great artists were more respected\r\nthan millionaires, and the result was the\r\nopposite of what it is in America.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eSome pacifists and all militarists deprecate\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_102\"\u003e102\u003c/span\u003e\r\nsocial and political conflicts. In this the militarists\r\nare in the right, from their point of\r\nview; but the pacifists seem to me mistaken.\r\nConflicts of party politics, conflicts between\r\ncapital and labor, and generally all those conflicts\r\nof principle which do not involve war,\r\nserve many useful purposes, and do very little\r\nharm. They increase men’s interest in public\r\naffairs, they afford a comparatively innocent\r\noutlet for the love of contest, and they help to\r\nalter laws and institutions, when changing conditions\r\nor greater knowledge create the wish\r\nfor an alteration. Everything that intensifies\r\npolitical life tends to bring about a peaceful\r\ninterest of the same kind as the interest which\r\nleads to desire for war. And in a democratic\r\ncommunity political questions give every voter\r\na sense of initiative and power and responsibility\r\nwhich relieves his life of something of its\r\nnarrow unadventurousness. The object of the\r\npacifist should be to give men more and more\r\npolitical control over their own lives, and in\r\nparticular to introduce democracy into the management\r\nof industry, as the syndicalists advise.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe problem for the reflective pacifist is two-fold:\r\nhow to keep his own country at peace, and\r\nhow to preserve the peace of the world. It is\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_103\"\u003e103\u003c/span\u003e\r\nimpossible that the peace of the world should\r\nbe preserved while nations are liable to the\r\nmood in which Germany entered upon the war—unless,\r\nindeed, one nation were so obviously\r\nstronger than all others combined as to make\r\nwar unnecessary for that one and hopeless for\r\nall the others. As this war has dragged on its\r\nweary length, many people must have asked\r\nthemselves whether national independence is\r\nworth the price that has to be paid for it.\r\nWould it not perhaps be better to secure universal\r\npeace by the supremacy of one Power?\r\n“To secure peace by a world federation”—so\r\na submissive pacifist may argue—“would require\r\nsome faint glimmerings of reason in\r\nrulers and peoples, and is therefore out of the\r\nquestion; but to secure it by allowing Germany\r\nto dictate terms to Europe would be easy, in\r\nview of Germany’s amazing military success.\r\nSince there is no other way of ending war”—so\r\nour advocate of peace at any price would\r\ncontend—“let us adopt this way, which happens\r\nat the moment to be open to us.” It is worth\r\nwhile to consider this view more attentively\r\nthan is commonly considered.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere is one great historic example of a long\r\npeace secured in this way; I mean the Roman\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_104\"\u003e104\u003c/span\u003e\r\nEmpire. We in England boast of the \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003ePax Britannica\u003c/i\u003e\r\nwhich we have imposed, in this way,\r\nupon the warring races and religions in India.\r\nIf we are right in boasting of this, if we have\r\nin fact conferred a benefit upon India by enforced\r\npeace, the Germans would be right in\r\nboasting if they could impose a \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003ePax Germanica\u003c/i\u003e\r\nupon Europe. Before the war, men might have\r\nsaid that India and Europe are not analogous,\r\nbecause India is less civilized than Europe; but\r\nnow, I hope, no one would have the effrontery\r\nto maintain anything so preposterous. Repeatedly\r\nin modern history there has been a\r\nchance of achieving European unity by the\r\nhegemony of a single State; but always England,\r\nin obedience to the doctrine of the Balance\r\nof Power, has prevented this consummation,\r\nand preserved what our statesmen have called\r\nthe “liberties of Europe.” It is this task upon\r\nwhich we are now engaged. But I do not think\r\nour statesmen, or any others among us, have\r\nmade much effort to consider whether the task\r\nis worth what it costs.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn one case we were clearly wrong: in our\r\nresistance to revolutionary France. If revolutionary\r\nFrance could have conquered the Continent\r\nand Great Britain, the world would now\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_105\"\u003e105\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbe happier, more civilized, and more free, as\r\nwell as more peaceful. But revolutionary\r\nFrance was a quite exceptional case, because\r\nits early conquests were made in the name of\r\nliberty, against tyrants, not against peoples;\r\nand everywhere the French armies were welcomed\r\nas liberators by all except rulers and\r\nbigots. In the case of Philip II we were as\r\nclearly right as we were wrong in 1793. But\r\nin both cases our action is not to be judged by\r\nsome abstract diplomatic conception of the\r\n“liberties of Europe,” but by the ideals of the\r\nPower seeking hegemony, and by the probable\r\neffect upon the welfare of ordinary men and\r\nwomen throughout Europe.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“Hegemony” is a very vague word, and\r\neverything turns upon the degree of interference\r\nwith liberty which it involves. There is a\r\ndegree of interference with liberty which is\r\nfatal to many forms of national life; for example,\r\nItaly in the seventeenth and eighteenth\r\ncenturies was crushed by the supremacy of\r\nSpain and Austria. If the Germans were actually\r\nto annex French provinces, as they did in\r\n1871, they would probably inflict a serious injury\r\nupon those provinces, and make them less\r\nfruitful for civilization in general. For such\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_106\"\u003e106\u003c/span\u003e\r\nreasons national liberty is a matter of real importance,\r\nand a Europe actually governed by\r\nGermany would probably be very dead and unproductive.\r\nBut if “hegemony” merely means\r\nincreased weight in diplomatic questions, more\r\ncoaling stations and possessions in Africa, more\r\npower of securing advantageous commercial\r\ntreaties, then it can hardly be supposed that it\r\nwould do any vital damage to other nations;\r\ncertainly it would not do so much damage as the\r\npresent war is doing. I cannot doubt that, before\r\nthe war, a hegemony of this kind would\r\nhave abundantly satisfied the Germans. But\r\nthe effect of the war, so far, has been to increase\r\nimmeasurably all the dangers which it\r\nwas intended to avert. We have now only the\r\nchoice between certain exhaustion of Europe in\r\nfighting Germany and possible damage to the\r\nnational life of France by German tyranny.\r\nStated in terms of civilization and human welfare,\r\nnot in terms of national prestige, that is\r\nnow in fact the issue.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAssuming that war is not ended by one State\r\nconquering all the others, the only way in which\r\nit can be permanently ended is by a world-federation.\r\nSo long as there are many sovereign\r\nStates, each with its own Army, there can\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_107\"\u003e107\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbe no security that there will not be war.\r\nThere will have to be in the world only one\r\nArmy and one Navy before there will be any\r\nreason to think that wars have ceased. This\r\nmeans that, so far as the military functions of\r\nthe State are concerned, there will be only one\r\nState, which will be world-wide.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe civil functions of the State—legislative,\r\nadministrative, and judicial—have no very essential\r\nconnection with the military functions,\r\nand there is no reason why both kinds of functions\r\nshould normally be exercised by the\r\nsame State. There is, in fact, every reason\r\nwhy the civil State and the military State\r\nshould be different. The greater modern\r\nStates are already too large for most civil purposes,\r\nbut for military purposes they are not\r\nlarge enough, since they are not world-wide.\r\nThis difference as to the desirable area for the\r\ntwo kinds of State introduces a certain perplexity\r\nand hesitation, when it is not realized that\r\nthe two functions have little necessary connection:\r\none set of considerations points towards\r\nsmall States, the other towards continually\r\nlarger States. Of course, if there were an international\r\nArmy and Navy, there would have\r\nto be some international authority to set them\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_108\"\u003e108\u003c/span\u003e\r\nin motion. But this authority need never concern\r\nitself with any of the internal affairs of\r\nnational States: it need only declare the rules\r\nwhich should regulate their relations, and pronounce\r\njudicially when those rules have been so\r\ninfringed as to call for the intervention of the\r\ninternational force. How easily the limit of\r\nthe authority could be fixed may be seen by\r\nmany actual examples.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe civil and military State are often different\r\nin practice, for many purposes. The South\r\nAmerican Republics are sovereign for all purposes\r\nexcept their relations with Europe, in regard\r\nto which they are subject to the United\r\nStates: in dealings with Europe, the Army and\r\nNavy of the United States are their Army and\r\nNavy. Our self-governing Dominions depend\r\nfor their defense, not upon their own forces but\r\nupon our Navy. Most Governments, nowadays,\r\ndo not aim at formal annexation of a\r\ncountry which they wish to incorporate, but only\r\nat a protectorate—that is, civil autonomy subject\r\nto military control. Such autonomy is, of\r\ncourse, in practice incomplete, because it does\r\nnot enable the “protected” country to adopt\r\nmeasures which are vetoed by the Power in\r\nmilitary control. But it may be very nearly\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_109\"\u003e109\u003c/span\u003e\r\ncomplete, as in the case of our self-governing\r\nDominions. At the other extreme, it may become\r\na mere farce, as in Egypt. In the case of\r\nan alliance, there is complete autonomy of the\r\nseparate allied countries, together with what\r\nis practically a combination of their military\r\nforces into one single force.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe great advantage of a large military\r\nState is that it increases the area over which\r\ninternal war is not possible except by revolution.\r\nIf England and Canada have a disagreement,\r\nit is taken as a matter of course that a\r\nsettlement shall be arrived at by discussion, not\r\nby force. Still more is this the case if Manchester\r\nand Liverpool have a quarrel, in spite\r\nof the fact that each is autonomous for many\r\nlocal purposes. No one would have thought it\r\nreasonable that Liverpool should go to war to\r\nprevent the construction of the Manchester\r\nShip Canal, although almost any two Great\r\nPowers would have gone to war over an issue\r\nof the same relative importance. England and\r\nRussia would probably have gone to war over\r\nPersia if they had not been allies; as it is, they\r\narrived by diplomacy at much the same iniquitous\r\nresult as they would otherwise have\r\nreached by fighting. Australia and Japan\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_110\"\u003e110\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwould probably fight if they were both completely\r\nindependent; but both depend for their\r\nliberties upon the British Navy, and therefore\r\nthey have to adjust their differences peaceably.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe chief disadvantage of a large military\r\nState is that, when external war occurs, the area\r\naffected is greater. The quadruple Entente\r\nforms, for the present, one military State; the\r\nresult is that, because of a dispute between Austria\r\nand Serbia, Belgium is devastated and Australians\r\nare killed in the Dardanelles. Another\r\ndisadvantage is that it facilitates oppression.\r\nA large military State is practically omnipotent\r\nagainst a small State, and can impose its will,\r\nas England and Russia did in Persia and as\r\nAustria-Hungary has been doing in Serbia. It\r\nis impossible to make sure of avoiding oppression\r\nby any purely mechanical guarantees; only\r\na liberal and humane spirit can afford a real\r\nprotection. It has been perfectly possible for\r\nEngland to oppress Ireland, in spite of democracy\r\nand the presence of Irish Members at\r\nWestminster. Nor has the presence of Poles\r\nin the Reichstag prevented the oppression of\r\nPrussian Poland. But democracy and representative\r\ngovernment undoubtedly make oppression\r\nless probable: they afford a means by\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_111\"\u003e111\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwhich those who might be oppressed can cause\r\ntheir wishes and grievances to be publicly\r\nknown, they render it certain that only a minority\r\ncan be oppressed, and then only if the majority\r\nare nearly unanimous in wishing to oppress\r\nthem. Also the practice of oppression\r\naffords much more pleasure to the governing\r\nclasses, who actually carry it out, than to the\r\nmass of the population. For this reason the\r\nmass of the population, where it has power, is\r\nlikely to be less tyrannical than an oligarchy or\r\na bureaucracy.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn order to prevent war and at the same\r\ntime preserve liberty it is necessary that there\r\nshould be only one military State in the world,\r\nand that when disputes between different countries\r\narise, it should act according to the decision\r\nof a central authority. This is what\r\nwould naturally result from a federation of the\r\nworld, if such a thing ever came about. But\r\nthe prospect is remote, and it is worth while\r\nto consider why it is so remote.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe unity of a nation is produced by similar\r\nhabits, instinctive liking, a common history,\r\nand a common pride. The unity of a nation is\r\npartly due to intrinsic affinities between its\r\ncitizens, but partly also to the pressure and contrast\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_112\"\u003e112\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof the outside world: if a nation were\r\nisolated, it would not have the same cohesion\r\nor the same fervor of patriotism. When we\r\ncome to alliances of nations, it is seldom anything\r\nexcept outside pressure that produces\r\nsolidarity. England and America, to some extent,\r\nare drawn together by the same causes\r\nwhich often make national unity: a (more or\r\nless) common language, similar political institutions,\r\nsimilar aims in international politics.\r\nBut England, France, and Russia were drawn\r\ntogether solely by fear of Germany; if Germany\r\nhad been annihilated by a natural cataclysm,\r\nthey would at once have begun to hate\r\none another, as they did before Germany was\r\nstrong. For this reason, the possibility of coöperation\r\nin the present alliance against Germany\r\naffords no ground whatever for hoping\r\nthat all the nations of the world might coöperate\r\npermanently in a peaceful alliance. The\r\npresent motive for cohesion, namely a common\r\nfear, would be gone, and could not be replaced\r\nby any other motive unless men’s thoughts and\r\npurposes were very different from what they\r\nare now.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe ultimate fact from which war results is\r\nnot economic or political, and does not rest\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_113\"\u003e113\u003c/span\u003e\r\nupon any mechanical difficulty of inventing\r\nmeans for the peaceful settlement of international\r\ndisputes. The ultimate fact from which\r\nwar results is the fact that a large proportion\r\nof mankind have an impulse to conflict rather\r\nthan harmony, and can only be brought to coöperate\r\nwith others in resisting or attacking a\r\ncommon enemy. This is the case in private\r\nlife as well as in the relations of States. Most\r\nmen, when they feel themselves sufficiently\r\nstrong, set to work to make themselves feared\r\nrather than loved; the wish to gain the good\r\nopinion of others is confined, as a rule, to those\r\nwho have not acquired secure power. The impulse\r\nto quarreling and self-assertion, the\r\npleasure of getting one’s own way in spite of\r\nopposition, is native to most men. It is this\r\nimpulse, rather than any motive of calculated\r\nself-interest, which produces war, and causes\r\nthe difficulty of bringing about a World-State.\r\nAnd this impulse is not confined to one nation;\r\nit exists, in varying degrees, in all the vigorous\r\nnations of the world.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut although this impulse is strong, there is\r\nno reason why it should be allowed to lead to\r\nwar. It was exactly the same impulse which\r\nled to duelling; yet now civilized men conduct\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_114\"\u003e114\u003c/span\u003e\r\ntheir private quarrels without bloodshed. If\r\npolitical contest within a World-State were\r\nsubstituted for war, imagination would soon\r\naccustom itself to the new situation, as it has\r\naccustomed itself to absence of duelling.\r\nThrough the influence of institutions and habits,\r\nwithout any fundamental change in human nature,\r\nmen would learn to look back upon war as\r\nwe look upon the burning of heretics or upon\r\nhuman sacrifice to heathen deities. If I were to\r\nbuy a revolver costing several pounds, in order\r\nto shoot my friend with a view to stealing sixpence\r\nout of his pocket, I should be thought\r\nneither very wise nor very virtuous. But if I\r\ncan get sixty-five million accomplices to join me\r\nin this criminal absurdity, I become one of a\r\ngreat and glorious nation, nobly sacrificing the\r\ncost of my revolver, perhaps even my life, in\r\norder to secure the sixpence for the honor of\r\nmy country. Historians, who are almost invariably\r\nsycophants, will praise me and my accomplices\r\nif we are successful, and say that we\r\nare worthy successors of the heroes who overthrew\r\nthe might of Imperial Rome. But if my\r\nopponents are victorious, if their sixpences are\r\ndefended at the cost of many pounds each and\r\nthe lives of a large proportion of the population,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_115\"\u003e115\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthen historians will call me a brigand (as I\r\nam), and praise the spirit and self-sacrifice of\r\nthose who resisted me.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWar is surrounded with glamour, by tradition,\r\nby Homer and the Old Testament, by early\r\neducation, by elaborate myths as to the importance\r\nof the issues involved, by the heroism and\r\nself-sacrifice, which these myths call out. Jephthah\r\nsacrificing his daughter is a heroic figure,\r\nbut he would have let her live if he had not been\r\ndeceived by a myth. Mothers sending their sons\r\nto the battlefield are heroic, but they are as\r\nmuch deceived as Jephthah. And, in both cases\r\nalike, the heroism which issues in cruelty would\r\nbe dispelled if there were not some strain of\r\nbarbarism in the imaginative outlook from\r\nwhich myths spring. A God who can be pleased\r\nby the sacrifice of an innocent girl could only\r\nbe worshiped by men to whom the thought of\r\nreceiving such a sacrifice is not wholly abhorrent.\r\nA nation which believes that its welfare\r\ncan only be secured by suffering and inflicting\r\nhundreds of thousands of equally horrible sacrifices,\r\nis a nation which has no very spiritual conception\r\nof what constitutes national welfare.\r\nIt would be better a hundredfold to forgo material\r\ncomfort, power, pomp, and outward glory\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_116\"\u003e116\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthan to kill and be killed, to hate and be hated,\r\nto throw away in a mad moment of fury the\r\nbright heritage of the ages. We have learnt\r\ngradually to free our God from the savagery\r\nwith which the primitive Israelites and the\r\nFathers endowed Him: few of us now believe\r\nthat it is His pleasure to torture most of the\r\nhuman race in an eternity of hell-fire. But we\r\nhave not yet learnt to free our national ideals\r\nfrom the ancient taint. Devotion to the nation\r\nis perhaps the deepest and most widespread religion\r\nof the present age. Like the ancient religions,\r\nit demands its persecutions, its holocausts,\r\nits lurid heroic cruelties; like them, it is\r\nnoble, primitive, brutal, and mad. Now, as in\r\nthe past, religion, lagging behind private consciences\r\nthrough the weight of tradition, steels\r\nthe hearts of men against mercy and their minds\r\nagainst truth. If the world is to be saved, men\r\nmust learn to be noble without being cruel, to be\r\nfilled with faith and yet open to truth, to be\r\ninspired by great purposes without hating those\r\nwho try to thwart them. But before this can\r\nhappen, men must first face the terrible realization\r\nthat the gods before whom they have bowed\r\ndown were false gods and the sacrifices they\r\nhave made were vain.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_117\"\u003e117\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter\"\u003e\r\n\u003ch2 class=\"vspace\" id=\"IV\"\u003eIV\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003cspan class=\"subhead\"\u003ePROPERTY\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"drop-cap al\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap1\"\u003eAmong\u003c/span\u003e the many gloomy novelists of the\r\nrealistic school, perhaps the most full of\r\ngloom is Gissing. In common with all his characters,\r\nhe lives under the weight of a great oppression:\r\nthe power of the fearful and yet\r\nadored idol of Money. One of his typical\r\nstories is “Eve’s Ransom,” where the heroine,\r\nwith various discreditable subterfuges, throws\r\nover the poor man whom she loves in order to\r\nmarry the rich man whose income she loves still\r\nbetter. The poor man, finding that the rich\r\nman’s income has given her a fuller life and a\r\nbetter character than the poor man’s love could\r\nhave given her, decides that she has done quite\r\nright, and that he deserves to be punished for\r\nhis lack of money. In this story, as in his other\r\nbooks, Gissing has set forth, quite accurately,\r\nthe actual dominion of money, and the impersonal\r\nworship which it exacts from the great\r\nmajority of civilized mankind.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eGissing’s facts are undeniable, and yet his\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_118\"\u003e118\u003c/span\u003e\r\nattitude produces a revolt in any reader who\r\nhas vital passions and masterful desires. His\r\nworship of money is bound up with his consciousness\r\nof inward defeat. And in the\r\nmodern world generally, it is the decay of life\r\nwhich has promoted the religion of material\r\ngoods; and the religion of material goods, in\r\nits turn, has hastened the decay of life on which\r\nit thrives. The man who worships money has\r\nceased to hope for happiness through his own\r\nefforts or in his own activities: he looks upon\r\nhappiness as a passive enjoyment of pleasures\r\nderived from the outside world. The artist or\r\nthe lover does not worship money in his moments\r\nof ardor, because his desires are specific,\r\nand directed towards objects which only he can\r\ncreate. And conversely, the worshiper of\r\nmoney can never achieve greatness as an artist\r\nor a lover.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eLove of money has been denounced by\r\nmoralists since the world began. I do not wish\r\nto add another to the moral denunciations, of\r\nwhich the efficacy in the past has not been encouraging.\r\nI wish to show how the worship of\r\nmoney is both an effect and a cause of diminishing\r\nvitality, and how our institutions might be\r\nchanged so as to make the worship of money\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_119\"\u003e119\u003c/span\u003e\r\ngrow less and the general vitality grow more.\r\nIt is not the desire for money as a means to definite\r\nends that is in question. A struggling\r\nartist may desire money in order to have leisure\r\nfor his art, but this desire is finite, and can be\r\nsatisfied fully by a very modest sum. It is the\r\n\u003cem\u003eworship\u003c/em\u003e of money that I wish to consider: the\r\nbelief that all values may be measured in terms\r\nof money, and that money is the ultimate test\r\nof success in life. This belief is held in fact,\r\nif not in words, by multitudes of men and\r\nwomen, and yet it is not in harmony with human\r\nnature, since it ignores vital needs and the instinctive\r\ntendency towards some specific kind\r\nof growth. It makes men treat as unimportant\r\nthose of their desires which run counter to the\r\nacquisition of money, and yet such desires are,\r\nas a rule, more important to well-being than any\r\nincrease of income. It leads men to mutilate\r\ntheir own natures from a mistaken theory of\r\nwhat constitutes success, and to give admiration\r\nto enterprises which add nothing to human welfare.\r\nIt promotes a dead uniformity of character\r\nand purpose, a diminution in the joy of\r\nlife, and a stress and strain which leaves whole\r\ncommunities weary, discouraged, and disillusioned.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_120\"\u003e120\u003c/span\u003e\r\nAmerica, the pioneer of Western progress, is\r\nthought by many to display the worship of\r\nmoney in its most perfect form. A well-to-do\r\nAmerican, who already has more than enough\r\nmoney to satisfy all reasonable requirements,\r\nalmost always continues to work at his office\r\nwith an assiduity which would only be pardonable\r\nif starvation were the alternative.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut England, except among a small minority,\r\nis almost as much given over to the worship of\r\nmoney as America. Love of money in England\r\ntakes, as a rule, the form of snobbishly desiring\r\nto maintain a certain social status, rather\r\nthan of striving after an indefinite increase of\r\nincome. Men postpone marriage until they\r\nhave an income enabling them to have as\r\nmany rooms and servants in their house\r\nas they feel that their dignity requires. This\r\nmakes it necessary for them while they are\r\nyoung to keep a watch upon their affections, lest\r\nthey should be led into an imprudence: they acquire\r\na cautious habit of mind, and a fear of\r\n“giving themselves away,” which makes a free\r\nand vigorous life impossible. In acting as they\r\ndo they imagine that they are being virtuous,\r\nsince they would feel it a hardship for a woman\r\nto be asked to descend to a lower social status\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_121\"\u003e121\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthan that of her parents, and a degradation to\r\nthemselves to marry a woman whose social\r\nstatus was not equal to their own. The things\r\nof nature are not valued in comparison with\r\nmoney. It is not thought a hardship for a\r\nwoman to have to accept, as her only experience\r\nof love, the prudent and limited attentions of a\r\nman whose capacity for emotion has been lost\r\nduring years of wise restraint or sordid relations\r\nwith women whom he did not respect.\r\nThe woman herself does not know that it is a\r\nhardship; for she, too, has been taught prudence\r\nfor fear of a descent in the social scale, and\r\nfrom early youth she has had it instilled into\r\nher that strong feeling does not become a young\r\nwoman. So the two unite to slip through life\r\nin ignorance of all that is worth knowing.\r\nTheir ancestors were not restrained from passion\r\nby the fear of hell-fire, but they are restrained\r\neffectually by a worse fear, the fear of\r\ncoming down in the world.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe same motives which lead men to marry\r\nlate also lead them to limit their families. Professional\r\nmen wish to send their sons to a public\r\nschool, though the education they will obtain\r\nis no better than at a grammar school, and\r\nthe companions with whom they will associate\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_122\"\u003e122\u003c/span\u003e\r\nare more vicious. But snobdom has decided\r\nthat public schools are best, and from its verdict\r\nthere is no appeal. What makes them the\r\nbest is that they are the most expensive. And\r\nthe same social struggle, in varying forms,\r\nruns through all classes except the very highest\r\nand the very lowest. For this purpose men\r\nand women make great moral efforts, and show\r\namazing powers of self-control; but all their efforts\r\nand all their self-control, being not used\r\nfor any creative end, serve merely to dry up the\r\nwell-spring of life within them, to make them\r\nfeeble, listless, and trivial. It is not in\r\nsuch a soil that the passion which produces\r\ngenius can be nourished. Men’s souls have\r\nexchanged the wilderness for the drawing-room:\r\nthey have become cramped and petty and deformed,\r\nlike Chinese women’s feet. Even the\r\nhorrors of war have hardly awakened them\r\nfrom the smug somnambulism of respectability.\r\nAnd it is chiefly the worship of money that has\r\nbrought about this deathlike slumber of all that\r\nmakes men great.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn France the worship of money takes the\r\nform of thrift. It is not easy to make a fortune\r\nin France, but an inherited competence is very\r\ncommon, and where it exists the main purpose\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_123\"\u003e123\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof life is to hand it on undiminished, if not increased.\r\nThe French \u003ci lang=\"fr\"\u003erentier\u003c/i\u003e is one of the great\r\nforces in international politics: it is he through\r\nwhom France has been strengthened in diplomacy\r\nand weakened in war, by increasing the\r\nsupply of French capital and diminishing the\r\nsupply of French men. The necessity of providing\r\na \u003cem\u003edot\u003c/em\u003e for daughters, and the subdivision\r\nof property by the law of inheritance, have made\r\nthe family more powerful, as an institution,\r\nthan in any other civilized country. In order\r\nthat the family may prosper, it is kept small,\r\nand the individual members are often sacrificed\r\nto it. The desire for family continuity makes\r\nmen timid and unadventurous: it is only in\r\nthe organized proletariat that the daring spirit\r\nsurvives which made the Revolution and led\r\nthe world in political thought and practice.\r\nThrough the influence of money, the strength\r\nof the family has become a weakness to the nation\r\nby making the population remain stationary\r\nand even tend to decline. The same love\r\nof safety is beginning to produce the same effects\r\nelsewhere; but in this, as in many better\r\nthings, France has led the way.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn Germany the worship of money is more\r\nrecent than in France, England, and America;\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_124\"\u003e124\u003c/span\u003e\r\nindeed, it hardly existed until after the Franco-Prussian\r\nWar. But it has been adopted now\r\nwith the same intensity and whole-heartedness\r\nwhich have always marked German beliefs. It\r\nis characteristic that, as in France the worship\r\nof money is associated with the family, so in\r\nGermany it is associated with the State. Liszt,\r\nin deliberate revolt against the English economists,\r\ntaught his compatriots to think of economics\r\nin national terms, and the German who\r\ndevelops a business is felt, by others as well as\r\nby himself, to be performing a service to the\r\nState. Germans believe that England’s greatness\r\nis due to industrialism and Empire, and\r\nthat our success in these is due to an intense\r\nnationalism. The apparent internationalism of\r\nour Free Trade policy they regard as mere hypocrisy.\r\nThey have set themselves to imitate\r\nwhat they believe we really are, with only the\r\nhypocrisy omitted. It must be admitted that\r\ntheir success has been amazing. But in the\r\nprocess they have destroyed almost all that\r\nmade Germany of value to the world, and they\r\nhave not adopted whatever of good there may\r\nhave been among us, since that was all swept\r\naside in the wholesale condemnation of “hypocrisy.”\r\nAnd in adopting our worst faults,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_125\"\u003e125\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthey have made them far worse by a system, a\r\nthoroughness, and a unanimity of which we are\r\nhappily incapable. Germany’s religion is of\r\ngreat importance to the world, since Germans\r\nhave a power of real belief, and have the energy\r\nto acquire the virtues and vices which their\r\ncreed demands. For the sake of the world, as\r\nwell as for the sake of Germany, we must hope\r\nthat they will soon abandon the worship of\r\nwealth which they have unfortunately learnt\r\nfrom us.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWorship of money is no new thing, but it is\r\na more harmful thing than it used to be, for\r\nseveral reasons. Industrialism has made work\r\nmore wearisome and intense, less capable of\r\naffording pleasure and interest by the way to\r\nthe man who has undertaken it for the sake of\r\nmoney. The power of limiting families has\r\nopened a new field for the operation of thrift.\r\nThe general increase in education and self-discipline\r\nhas made men more capable of pursuing\r\na purpose consistently in spite of temptations,\r\nand when the purpose is against life it becomes\r\nmore destructive with every increase of tenacity\r\nin those who adopt it. The greater productivity\r\nresulting from industrialism has enabled\r\nus to devote more labor and capital to\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_126\"\u003e126\u003c/span\u003e\r\narmies and navies for the protection of our\r\nwealth from envious neighbors, and for the exploitation\r\nof inferior races, which are ruthlessly\r\nwasted by the capitalist régime. Through the\r\nfear of losing money, forethought and anxiety\r\neat away men’s power of happiness, and the\r\ndread of misfortune becomes a greater misfortune\r\nthan the one which is dreaded. The happiest\r\nmen and women, as we can all testify from\r\nour own experience, are those who are indifferent\r\nto money because they have some positive\r\npurpose which shuts it out. And yet all\r\nour political thought, whether imperialist, radical,\r\nor socialist, continues to occupy itself almost\r\nexclusively with men’s economic desires,\r\nas though they alone had real importance.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn judging of an industrial system, whether\r\nthe one under which we live or one proposed by\r\nreformers, there are four main tests which may\r\nbe applied. We may consider whether the system\r\nsecures (1) the maximum of production, or\r\n(2) justice in distribution, or (3) a tolerable existence\r\nfor producers, or (4) the greatest possible\r\nfreedom and stimulus to vitality and progress.\r\nWe may say, broadly, that the present\r\nsystem aims only at the first of these objects,\r\nwhile socialism aims at the second and third.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_127\"\u003e127\u003c/span\u003e\r\nSome defenders of the present system contend\r\nthat technical progress is better promoted by\r\nprivate enterprise than it would be if industry\r\nwere in the hands of the State; to this extent\r\nthey recognize the fourth of the objects\r\nwe have enumerated. But they recognize it\r\nonly on the side of the goods and the capitalist,\r\nnot on the side of the wage-earner. I believe\r\nthat the fourth is much the most important of\r\nthe objects to be aimed at, that the present system\r\nis fatal to it, and that orthodox socialism\r\nmight well prove equally fatal.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOne of the least questioned assumptions of\r\nthe capitalist system is, that production ought\r\nto be increased in amount by every possible\r\nmeans: by new kinds of machinery, by employment\r\nof women and boys, by making hours of\r\nlabor as long as is compatible with efficiency.\r\nCentral African natives, accustomed to living\r\non raw fruits of the earth and defeating Manchester\r\nby dispensing with clothes, are compelled\r\nto work by a hut tax which they can only\r\npay by taking employment under European capitalists.\r\nIt is admitted that they are perfectly\r\nhappy while they remain free from European\r\ninfluences, and that industrialism brings upon\r\nthem, not only the unwonted misery of confinement,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_128\"\u003e128\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbut also death from diseases to which\r\nwhite men have become partially immune. It\r\nis admitted that the best negro workers are the\r\n“raw natives,” fresh from the bush, uncontaminated\r\nby previous experience of wage-earning.\r\nNevertheless, no one effectively contends that\r\nthey ought to be preserved from the deterioration\r\nwhich we bring, since no one effectively\r\ndoubts that it is good to increase the world’s\r\nproduction at no matter what cost.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe belief in the importance of production\r\nhas a fanatical irrationality and ruthlessness.\r\nSo long as something is produced, what it is\r\nthat is produced seems to be thought a matter\r\nof no account. Our whole economic system encourages\r\nthis view, since fear of unemployment\r\nmakes any kind of work a boon to wage-earners.\r\nThe mania for increasing production has\r\nturned men’s thoughts away from much more\r\nimportant problems, and has prevented the\r\nworld from getting the benefits it might have\r\ngot out of the increased productivity of labor.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhen we are fed and clothed and housed,\r\nfurther material goods are needed only for ostentation.\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_12\" id=\"FNanchor_12\"\u003e12\u003c/a\u003e\r\nWith modern methods, a certain\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_129\"\u003e129\u003c/span\u003e\r\nproportion of the population, without working\r\nlong hours, could do all the work that is really\r\nnecessary in the way of producing commodities.\r\nThe time which is now spent in producing\r\nluxuries could be spent partly in enjoyment\r\nand country holidays, partly in better education,\r\npartly in work that is not manual or subserving\r\nmanual work. We could, if we wished,\r\nhave far more science and art, more diffused\r\nknowledge and mental cultivation, more leisure\r\nfor wage-earners, and more capacity for intelligent\r\npleasures. At present not only wages, but\r\nalmost all earned incomes, can only be obtained\r\nby working much longer hours than men ought\r\nto work. A man who earns £800 a year by hard\r\nwork could not, as a rule, earn £400 a year by\r\nhalf as much work. Often he could not earn\r\nanything if he were not willing to work practically\r\nall day and every day. Because of the\r\nexcessive belief in the value of production, it\r\nis thought right and proper for men to work\r\nlong hours, and the good that might result from\r\nshorter hours is not realized. And all the cruelties\r\nof the industrial system, not only in Europe\r\nbut even more in the tropics, arouse only an\r\noccasional feeble protest from a few philanthropists.\r\nThis is because, owing to the distortion\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_130\"\u003e130\u003c/span\u003e\r\nproduced by our present economic methods,\r\nmen’s conscious desires, in such matters, cover\r\nonly a very small part, and that not the most\r\nimportant part, of the real needs affected by\r\nindustrial work. If this is to be remedied, it\r\ncan only be by a different economic system, in\r\nwhich the relation of activity to needs will be\r\nless concealed and more direct.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe purpose of maximizing production will\r\nnot be achieved in the long run if our present\r\nindustrial system continues. Our present system\r\nis wasteful of human material, partly\r\nthrough damage to the health and efficiency of\r\nindustrial workers, especially when women and\r\nchildren are employed, partly through the fact\r\nthat the best workers tend to have small families\r\nand that the more civilized races are in\r\ndanger of gradual extinction. Every great\r\ncity is a center of race-deterioration. For the\r\ncase of London this has been argued with a\r\nwealth of statistical detail by Sir H. Llewelyn\r\nSmith;\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_13\" id=\"FNanchor_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e and it cannot easily be doubted that it\r\nis equally true in other cases. The same is true\r\nof material resources: the minerals, the virgin\r\nforests, and the newly developed wheatfields of\r\nthe world are being exhausted with a reckless\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_131\"\u003e131\u003c/span\u003e\r\nprodigality which entails almost a certainty of\r\nhardship for future generations.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eSocialists see the remedy in State ownership\r\nof land and capital, combined with a more just\r\nsystem of distribution. It cannot be denied that\r\nour present system of distribution is indefensible\r\nfrom every point of view, including the\r\npoint of view of justice. Our system of distribution\r\nis regulated by law, and is capable of\r\nbeing changed in many respects which familiarity\r\nmakes us regard as natural and inevitable.\r\nWe may distinguish four chief sources of recognized\r\nlegal rights to private property: (1) a\r\nman’s right to what he has made himself; (2)\r\nthe right to interest on capital which has been\r\nlent; (3) the ownership of land; (4) inheritance.\r\nThese form a crescendo of respectability: capital\r\nis more respectable than labor, land is more\r\nrespectable than capital, and any form of\r\nwealth is more respectable when it is inherited\r\nthan when it has been acquired by our own exertions.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA man’s right to the produce of his own labor\r\nhas never, in fact, had more than a very limited\r\nrecognition from the law. The early socialists,\r\nespecially the English forerunners of\r\nMarx, used to insist upon this right as the basis\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_132\"\u003e132\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof a just system of distribution, but in the complication\r\nof modern industrial processes it is\r\nimpossible to say what a man has produced.\r\nWhat proportion of the goods carried by a railway\r\nshould belong to the goods porters concerned\r\nin their journey? When a surgeon saves\r\na man’s life by an operation, what proportion\r\nof the commodities which the man subsequently\r\nproduces can the surgeon justly claim? Such\r\nproblems are insoluble. And there is no special\r\njustice, even if they were soluble, in allowing\r\nto each man what he himself produces.\r\nSome men are stronger, healthier, cleverer,\r\nthan others, but there is no reason for increasing\r\nthese natural injustices by the artificial injustices\r\nof the law. The principle recommends\r\nitself partly as a way of abolishing the very\r\nrich, partly as a way of stimulating people to\r\nwork hard. But the first of these objects can\r\nbe better obtained in other ways, and the second\r\nceases to be obviously desirable as soon as we\r\ncease to worship money.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eInterest arises naturally in any community\r\nin which private property is unrestricted and\r\ntheft is punished, because some of the most economical\r\nprocesses of production are slow, and\r\nthose who have the skill to perform them may\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_133\"\u003e133\u003c/span\u003e\r\nnot have the means of living while they are\r\nbeing completed. But the power of lending\r\nmoney gives such great wealth and influence to\r\nprivate capitalists that unless strictly controlled\r\nit is not compatible with any real freedom for\r\nthe rest of the population. Its effects at present,\r\nboth in the industrial world and in international\r\npolitics, are so bad that it seems imperatively\r\nnecessary to devise some means of curbing\r\nits power.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePrivate property in land has no justification\r\nexcept historically through power of the sword.\r\nIn the beginning of feudal times, certain men\r\nhad enough military strength to be able to force\r\nthose whom they disliked not to live in a certain\r\narea. Those whom they chose to leave on\r\nthe land became their serfs, and were forced to\r\nwork for them in return for the gracious permission\r\nto stay. In order to establish law in\r\nplace of private force, it was necessary, in the\r\nmain, to leave undisturbed the rights which had\r\nbeen acquired by the sword. The land became\r\nthe property of those who had conquered it, and\r\nthe serfs were allowed to give rent instead of\r\nservice. There is no justification for private\r\nproperty in land, except the historical necessity\r\nto conciliate turbulent robbers who would not\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_134\"\u003e134\u003c/span\u003e\r\notherwise have obeyed the law. This necessity\r\narose in Europe many centuries ago, but\r\nin Africa the whole process is often quite recent.\r\nIt is by this process, slightly disguised,\r\nthat the Kimberley diamond mines and the\r\nRand gold mines were acquired in spite of prior\r\nnative rights. It is a singular example of human\r\ninertia that men should have continued\r\nuntil now to endure the tyranny and extortion\r\nwhich a small minority are able to inflict by\r\ntheir possession of the land. No good to the\r\ncommunity, of any sort or kind, results from\r\nthe private ownership of land. If men were\r\nreasonable, they would decree that it should\r\ncease to-morrow, with no compensation beyond\r\na moderate life income to the present holders.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe mere abolition of rent would not remove\r\ninjustice, since it would confer a capricious advantage\r\nupon the occupiers of the best sites and\r\nthe most fertile land. It is necessary that there\r\nshould be rent, but it should be paid to the State\r\nor to some body which performs public services;\r\nor, if the total rental were more than is\r\nrequired for such purposes, it might be paid\r\ninto a common fund and divided equally among\r\nthe population. Such a method would be just,\r\nand would not only help to relieve poverty, but\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_135\"\u003e135\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwould prevent wasteful employment of land and\r\nthe tyranny of local magnates. Much that appears\r\nas the power of capital is really the power\r\nof the landowner—for example, the power of\r\nrailway companies and mine-owners. The evil\r\nand injustice of the present system are glaring,\r\nbut men’s patience of preventable evils to which\r\nthey are accustomed is so great that it is impossible\r\nto guess when they will put an end to this\r\nstrange absurdity.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eInheritance, which is the source of the greater\r\npart of the unearned income in the world, is regarded\r\nby most men as a natural right. Sometimes,\r\nas in England, the right is inherent in\r\nthe owner of property, who may dispose of it in\r\nany way that seems good to him. Sometimes,\r\nas in France, his right is limited by the right of\r\nhis family to inherit at least a portion of what\r\nhe has to leave. But neither the right to dispose\r\nof property by will nor the right of children\r\nto inherit from parents has any basis outside\r\nthe instincts of possession and family\r\npride.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere may be reasons for allowing a man\r\nwhose work is exceptionally fruitful—for instance,\r\nan inventor—to enjoy a larger income\r\nthan is enjoyed by the average citizen, but there\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_136\"\u003e136\u003c/span\u003e\r\ncan be no good reason for allowing this privilege\r\nto descend to his children and grandchildren\r\nand so on for ever. The effect is to produce\r\nan idle and exceptionally fortunate class,\r\nwho are influential through their money, and\r\nopposed to reform for fear it should be directed\r\nagainst themselves. Their whole habit\r\nof thought becomes timid, since they dread\r\nbeing forced to acknowledge that their position\r\nis indefensible; yet snobbery and the wish to\r\nsecure their favor leads almost the whole middle-class\r\nto ape their manners and adopt their opinions.\r\nIn this way they become a poison infecting\r\nthe outlook of almost all educated people.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is sometimes said that without the incentive\r\nof inheritance men would not work so well.\r\nThe great captains of industry, we are assured,\r\nare actuated by the desire to found a family,\r\nand would not devote their lives to unremitting\r\ntoil without the hope of gratifying this desire.\r\nI do not believe that any large proportion of\r\nreally useful work is done from this motive.\r\nOrdinary work is done for the sake of a living,\r\nand the very best work is done for the interest\r\nof the work itself. Even the captains of industry,\r\nwho are thought (perhaps by themselves as\r\nwell as by others) to be aiming at founding a\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_137\"\u003e137\u003c/span\u003e\r\nfamily, are probably more actuated by love of\r\npower and by the adventurous pleasure of great\r\nenterprises. And if there were some slight\r\ndiminution in the amount of work done, it\r\nwould be well worth while in order to get rid\r\nof the idle rich, with the oppression, feebleness,\r\nand corruption which they inevitably introduce.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe present system of distribution is not\r\nbased upon any principle. Starting from a system\r\nimposed by conquest, the arrangements\r\nmade by the conquerors for their own benefit\r\nwere stereotyped by the law, and have never\r\nbeen fundamentally reconstructed. On what\r\nprinciples ought the reconstruction to be\r\nbased?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eSocialism, which is the most widely advocated\r\nscheme of reconstruction, aims chiefly at\r\n\u003cem\u003ejustice\u003c/em\u003e: the present inequalities of wealth are\r\nunjust, and socialism would abolish them. It\r\nis not essential to socialism that all men should\r\nhave the same income, but it is essential that\r\ninequalities should be justified, in each case, by\r\ninequality of need or of service performed.\r\nThere can be no disputing that the present system\r\nis grossly unjust, and that almost all that\r\nis unjust in it is harmful. But I do not think\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_138\"\u003e138\u003c/span\u003e\r\njustice alone is a sufficient principle upon which\r\nto base an economic reconstruction. Justice\r\nwould be secured if all were equally unhappy,\r\nas well as if all were equally happy. Justice,\r\nby itself, when once realized, contains no source\r\nof new life. The old type of Marxian revolutionary\r\nsocialist never dwelt, in imagination,\r\nupon the life of communities after the establishment\r\nof the millennium. He imagined that,\r\nlike the Prince and Princess in a fairy story,\r\nthey would live happily ever after. But that\r\nis not a condition possible to human nature.\r\nDesire, activity, purpose, are essential to a tolerable\r\nlife, and a millennium, though it may be\r\na joy in prospect, would be intolerable if it were\r\nactually achieved.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe more modern socialists, it is true, have\r\nlost most of the religious fervor which characterized\r\nthe pioneers, and view socialism as a\r\ntendency rather than a definite goal. But they\r\nstill retain the view that what is of most political\r\nimportance to a man is his income, and\r\nthat the principal aim of a democratic politician\r\nought to be to increase the wages of labor. I\r\nbelieve this involves too passive a conception\r\nof what constitutes happiness. It is true that,\r\nin the industrial world, large sections of the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_139\"\u003e139\u003c/span\u003e\r\npopulation are too poor to have any possibility\r\nof a good life; but it is not true that a good life\r\nwill come of itself with a diminution of poverty.\r\nVery few of the well-to-do classes have a good\r\nlife at present, and perhaps socialism would\r\nonly substitute the evils which now afflict the\r\nmore prosperous in place of the evils resulting\r\nfrom destitution.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn the existing labor movement, although it\r\nis one of the most vital sources of change, there\r\nare certain tendencies against which reformers\r\nought to be on their guard. The labor movement\r\nis in essence a movement in favor of justice,\r\nbased upon the belief that the sacrifice of\r\nthe many to the few is not necessary now, whatever\r\nmay have been the case in the past. When\r\nlabor was less productive and education was less\r\nwidespread, an aristocratic civilization may\r\nhave been the only one possible: it may have\r\nbeen necessary that the many should contribute\r\nto the life of the few, if the few were to transmit\r\nand increase the world’s possessions in art\r\nand thought and civilized existence. But this\r\nnecessity is past or rapidly passing, and there\r\nis no longer any valid objection to the claims of\r\njustice. The labor movement is morally irresistible,\r\nand is not now seriously opposed except\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_140\"\u003e140\u003c/span\u003e\r\nby prejudice and simple self-assertion.\r\nAll living thought is on its side; what is against\r\nit is traditional and dead. But although it itself\r\nis living, it is not by any means certain that\r\nit will make for life.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eLabor is led by current political thought in\r\ncertain directions which would become repressive\r\nand dangerous if they were to remain\r\nstrong after labor had triumphed. The aspirations\r\nof the labor movement are, on the whole,\r\nopposed by the great majority of the educated\r\nclasses, who feel a menace, not only or chiefly\r\nto their personal comfort, but to the civilized\r\nlife in which they have their part, which they\r\nprofoundly believe to be important to the world.\r\nOwing to the opposition of the educated classes,\r\nlabor, when it is revolutionary and vigorous,\r\ntends to despise all that the educated classes\r\nrepresent. When it is more respectful, as its\r\nleaders tend to be in England, the subtle and\r\nalmost unconscious influence of educated men\r\nis apt to sap revolutionary ardor, producing\r\ndoubt and uncertainty instead of the swift, simple\r\nassurance by which victory might have been\r\nwon. The very sympathy which the best men\r\nin the well-to-do classes extend to labor, their\r\nvery readiness to admit the justice of its claims,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_141\"\u003e141\u003c/span\u003e\r\nmay have the effect of softening the opposition\r\nof labor leaders to the \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003estatus quo\u003c/i\u003e, and of opening\r\ntheir minds to the suggestion that no fundamental\r\nchange is possible. Since these influences\r\naffect leaders much more than the rank\r\nand file, they tend to produce in the rank and file\r\na distrust of leaders, and a desire to seek out\r\nnew leaders who will be less ready to concede\r\nthe claims of the more fortunate classes. The\r\nresult may be in the end a labor movement as\r\nhostile to the life of the mind as some terrified\r\nproperty-owners believe it to be at present.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe claims of justice, narrowly interpreted,\r\nmay reinforce this tendency. It may be thought\r\nunjust that some men should have larger incomes\r\nor shorter hours of work than other men.\r\nBut efficiency in mental work, including the\r\nwork of education, certainly requires more comfort\r\nand longer periods of rest than are required\r\nfor efficiency in physical work, if only because\r\nmental work is not physiologically wholesome.\r\nIf this is not recognized, the life of the mind\r\nmay suffer through short-sightedness even\r\nmore than through deliberate hostility.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eEducation suffers at present, and may long\r\ncontinue to suffer, through the desire of parents\r\nthat their children should earn money as\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_142\"\u003e142\u003c/span\u003e\r\nsoon as possible. Every one knows that the\r\nhalf-time system, for example, is bad; but the\r\npower of organized labor keeps it in existence.\r\nIt is clear that the cure for this evil, as for\r\nthose that are concerned with the population\r\nquestion, is to relieve parents of the expense\r\nof their children’s education, and at the same\r\ntime to take away their right to appropriate\r\ntheir children’s earnings.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe way to prevent any dangerous opposition\r\nof labor to the life of the mind is not to oppose\r\nthe labor movement, which is too strong to be\r\nopposed with justice. The right way is, to\r\nshow by actual practice that thought is useful\r\nto labor, that without thought its positive aims\r\ncannot be achieved, and that there are men in\r\nthe world of thought who are willing to devote\r\ntheir energies to helping labor in its struggle.\r\nSuch men, if they are wise and sincere, can prevent\r\nlabor from becoming destructive of what\r\nis living in the intellectual world.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAnother danger in the aims of organized labor\r\nis the danger of conservatism as to methods\r\nof production. Improvements of machinery\r\nor organization bring great advantages to\r\nemployers, but involve temporary and sometimes\r\npermanent loss to the wage-earners. For\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_143\"\u003e143\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthis reason, and also from mere instinctive dislike\r\nof any change of habits, strong labor organizations\r\nare often obstacles to technical\r\nprogress. The ultimate basis of all social progress\r\nmust be increased technical efficiency, a\r\ngreater result from a given amount of labor.\r\nIf labor were to offer an effective opposition\r\nto this kind of progress, it would in the long\r\nrun paralyze all other progress. The way to\r\novercome the opposition of labor is not by hostility\r\nor moral homilies, but by giving to labor\r\nthe direct interest in economical processes\r\nwhich now belongs to the employers. Here, as\r\nelsewhere, the unprogressive part of a movement\r\nwhich is essentially progressive is to be\r\neliminated, not by decrying the whole movement\r\nbut by giving it a wider sweep, making it more\r\nprogressive, and leading it to demand an even\r\ngreater change in the structure of society than\r\nany that it had contemplated in its inception.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe most important purpose that political institutions\r\ncan achieve is to keep alive in individuals\r\ncreativeness, vigor, vitality, and the joy\r\nof life. These things existed, for example, in\r\nElizabethan England in a way in which they\r\ndo not exist now. They stimulated adventure,\r\npoetry, music, fine architecture, and set going\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_144\"\u003e144\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe whole movement out of which England’s\r\ngreatness has sprung in every direction in which\r\nEngland has been great. These things coexisted\r\nwith injustice, but outweighed it, and made\r\na national life more admirable than any that is\r\nlikely to exist under socialism.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat is wanted in order to keep men full of\r\nvitality is opportunity, not security. Security\r\nis merely a refuge from fear; opportunity is the\r\nsource of hope. The chief test of an economic\r\nsystem is not whether it makes men prosperous,\r\nor whether it secures distributive justice\r\n(though these are both very desirable), but\r\nwhether it leaves men’s instinctive growth unimpeded.\r\nTo achieve this purpose, there are\r\ntwo main conditions which it should fulfil: it\r\nshould not cramp men’s private affections, and\r\nit should give the greatest possible outlet to\r\nthe impulse of creation. There is in most men,\r\nuntil it becomes atrophied by disuse, an instinct\r\nof constructiveness, a wish to make something.\r\nThe men who achieve most are, as a rule, those\r\nin whom this instinct is strongest: such men\r\nbecome artists, men of science, statesmen, empire-builders,\r\nor captains of industry, according\r\nto the accidents of temperament and opportunity.\r\nThe most beneficent and the most\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_145\"\u003e145\u003c/span\u003e\r\nharmful careers are inspired by this impulse.\r\nWithout it, the world would sink to the level of\r\nTibet: it would subsist, as it is always prone\r\nto do, on the wisdom of its ancestors, and each\r\ngeneration would sink more deeply into a lifeless\r\ntraditionalism.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut it is not only the remarkable men who\r\nhave the instinct of constructiveness, though it\r\nis they who have it most strongly. It is almost\r\nuniversal in boys, and in men it usually survives\r\nin a greater or less degree, according to\r\nthe greater or less outlet which it is able to\r\nfind. Work inspired by this instinct is satisfying,\r\neven when it is irksome and difficult, because\r\nevery effort is as natural as the effort of\r\na dog pursuing a hare. The chief defect of\r\nthe present capitalistic system is that work done\r\nfor wages very seldom affords any outlet for\r\nthe creative impulse. The man who works for\r\nwages has no choice as to what he shall make:\r\nthe whole creativeness of the processes concentrate\r\nin the employer who orders the work to\r\nbe done. For this reason the work becomes a\r\nmerely external means to a certain result, the\r\nearning of wages. Employers grow indignant\r\nabout the trade union rules for limitation of\r\noutput, but they have no right to be indignant,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_146\"\u003e146\u003c/span\u003e\r\nsince they do not permit the men whom they\r\nemploy to have any share in the purpose for\r\nwhich the work is undertaken. And so the process\r\nof production, which should form one instinctive\r\ncycle, becomes divided into separate\r\npurposes, which can no longer provide any satisfaction\r\nof instinct for those who do the work.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis result is due to our industrial system,\r\nbut it would not be avoided by socialism. In\r\na socialist community, the State would be the\r\nemployer, and the individual workman would\r\nhave almost as little control over his work as\r\nhe has at present. Such control as he could\r\nexercise would be indirect, through political\r\nchannels, and would be too slight and roundabout\r\nto afford any appreciable satisfaction.\r\nIt is to be feared that instead of an increase of\r\nself-direction, there would only be an increase\r\nof mutual interference.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe total abolition of private capitalistic enterprise,\r\nwhich is demanded by Marxian socialism,\r\nseems scarcely necessary. Most men who\r\nconstruct sweeping systems of reform, like most\r\nof those who defend the \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003estatus quo\u003c/i\u003e, do not allow\r\nenough for the importance of exceptions and\r\nthe undesirability of rigid system. Provided\r\nthe sphere of capitalism is restricted, and a\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_147\"\u003e147\u003c/span\u003e\r\nlarge proportion of the population are rescued\r\nfrom its dominion, there is no reason to wish\r\nit wholly abolished. As a competitor and a\r\nrival, it might serve a useful purpose in preventing\r\nmore democratic enterprises from sinking\r\ninto sloth and technical conservatism. But\r\nit is of the very highest importance that capitalism\r\nshould become the exception rather than the\r\nrule, and that the bulk of the world’s industry\r\nshould be conducted on a more democratic system.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eMuch of what is to be said against militarism\r\nin the State is also to be said against capitalism\r\nin the economic sphere. Economic organizations,\r\nin the pursuit of efficiency, grow larger\r\nand larger, and there is no possibility of reversing\r\nthis process. The causes of their\r\ngrowth are technical, and large organizations\r\nmust be accepted as an essential part of civilized\r\nsociety. But there is no reason why their\r\ngovernment should be centralized and monarchical.\r\nThe present economic system, by robbing\r\nmost men of initiative, is one of the causes\r\nof the universal weariness which devitalizes\r\nurban and industrial populations, making them\r\nperpetually seek excitement, and leading them\r\nto welcome even the outbreak of war as a relief\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_148\"\u003e148\u003c/span\u003e\r\nfrom the dreary monotony of their daily lives.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIf the vigor of the nation is to be preserved,\r\nif we are to retain any capacity for new ideas,\r\nif we are not to sink into a Chinese condition of\r\nstereotyped immobility, the monarchical organization\r\nof industry must be swept away. All\r\nlarge businesses must become democratic and\r\nfederal in their government. The whole wage-earning\r\nsystem is an abomination, not only because\r\nof the social injustice which it causes and\r\nperpetuates, but also because it separates the\r\nman who does the work from the purpose for\r\nwhich the work is done. The whole of the controlling\r\npurpose is concentrated in the capitalist;\r\nthe purpose of the wage-earner is not the\r\nproduce, but the wages. The purpose of the\r\ncapitalist is to secure the maximum of work for\r\nthe minimum of wages; the purpose of the\r\nwage-earner is to secure the maximum of wages\r\nfor the minimum of work. A system involving\r\nthis essential conflict of interests cannot be\r\nexpected to work smoothly or successfully, or\r\nto produce a community with any pride in efficiency.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eTwo movements exist, one already well advanced,\r\nthe other in its infancy, which seem\r\ncapable, between them, of effecting most of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_149\"\u003e149\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwhat is needed. The two movements I mean\r\nare the coöperative movement and syndicalism.\r\nThe coöperative movement is capable of\r\nreplacing the wage system over a very wide\r\nfield, but it is not easy to see how it could be\r\napplied to such things as railways. It is just\r\nin these cases that the principles of syndicalism\r\nare most easily applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIf organization is not to crush individuality,\r\nmembership of an organization ought to be voluntary,\r\nnot compulsory, and ought always to\r\ncarry with it a voice in the management. This\r\nis not the case with economic organizations,\r\nwhich give no opportunity for the pride and\r\npleasure that men find in an activity of their\r\nown choice, provided it is not utterly monotonous.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt must be admitted, however, that much of\r\nthe mechanical work which is necessary in industry\r\nis probably not capable of being made\r\ninteresting in itself. But it will seem less\r\ntedious than it does at present if those who do\r\nit have a voice in the management of their industry.\r\nAnd men who desire leisure for other\r\noccupations might be given the opportunity of\r\ndoing uninteresting work during a few hours\r\nof the day for a low wage; this would give an\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_150\"\u003e150\u003c/span\u003e\r\nopening to all who wished for some activity not\r\nimmediately profitable to themselves. When\r\neverything that is possible has been done to\r\nmake work interesting, the residue will have to\r\nbe made endurable, as almost all work is at\r\npresent, by the inducement of rewards outside\r\nthe hours of labor. But if these rewards are\r\nto be satisfactory, it is essential that the uninteresting\r\nwork should not necessarily absorb a\r\nman’s whole energies, and that opportunities\r\nshould exist for more or less continuous activities\r\nduring the remaining hours. Such a system\r\nmight be an immeasurable boon to artists,\r\nmen of letters, and others who produce for their\r\nown satisfaction works which the public does\r\nnot value soon enough to secure a living for\r\nthe producers; and apart from such rather rare\r\ncases, it might provide an opportunity for\r\nyoung men and women with intellectual ambitions\r\nto continue their education after they have\r\nleft school, or to prepare themselves for careers\r\nwhich require an exceptionally long training.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe evils of the present system result from\r\nthe separation between the several interests of\r\nconsumer, producer, and capitalist. No one of\r\nthese three has the same interests as the community\r\nor as either of the other two. The coöperative\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_151\"\u003e151\u003c/span\u003e\r\nsystem amalgamates the interests of\r\nconsumer and capitalist; syndicalism would\r\namalgamate the interests of producer and capitalist.\r\nNeither amalgamates all three, or\r\nmakes the interests of those who direct industry\r\nquite identical with those of the community.\r\nNeither, therefore, would wholly prevent\r\nindustrial strife, or obviate the need of the\r\nState as arbitrator. But either would be better\r\nthan the present system, and probably a\r\nmixture of both would cure most of the evils\r\nof industrialism as it exists now. It is surprising\r\nthat, while men and women have struggled\r\nto achieve political democracy, so little has been\r\ndone to introduce democracy in industry. I believe\r\nincalculable benefits might result from industrial\r\ndemocracy, either on the coöperative\r\nmodel or with recognition of a trade or industry\r\nas a unit for purposes of government, with\r\nsome kind of Home Rule such as syndicalism\r\naims at securing. There is no reason why all\r\ngovernmental units should be geographical:\r\nthis system was necessary in the past because\r\nof the slowness of means of communication, but\r\nit is not necessary now. By some such system\r\nmany men might come to feel again a pride in\r\ntheir work, and to find again that outlet for the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_152\"\u003e152\u003c/span\u003e\r\ncreative impulse which is now denied to all but\r\na fortunate few. Such a system requires the\r\nabolition of the land-owner and the restriction\r\nof the capitalist, but does not entail equality of\r\nearnings. And unlike socialism, it is not a\r\nstatic or final system: it is hardly more than a\r\nframework for energy and initiative. It is only\r\nby some such method, I believe, that the free\r\ngrowth of the individual can be reconciled with\r\nthe huge technical organizations which have\r\nbeen rendered necessary by industrialism.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_153\"\u003e153\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter\"\u003e\r\n\u003ch2 class=\"vspace\" id=\"V\"\u003eV\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003cspan class=\"subhead\"\u003eEDUCATION\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"drop-cap\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap1\"\u003eNo\u003c/span\u003e political theory is adequate unless it is\r\napplicable to children as well as to men\r\nand women. Theorists are mostly childless, or,\r\nif they have children, they are carefully\r\nscreened from the disturbances which would be\r\ncaused by youthful turmoil. Some of them\r\nhave written books on education, but without,\r\nas a rule, having any actual children present to\r\ntheir minds while they wrote. Those educational\r\ntheorists who have had a knowledge of\r\nchildren, such as the inventors of Kindergarten\r\nand the Montessori system,\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_14\" id=\"FNanchor_14\"\u003e14\u003c/a\u003e have not always\r\nhad enough realization of the ultimate goal of\r\neducation to be able to deal successfully with\r\nadvanced instruction. I have not the knowledge\r\neither of children or of education which\r\nwould enable me to supply whatever defects\r\nthere may be in the writings of others. But\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_154\"\u003e154\u003c/span\u003e\r\nsome questions, concerning education as a political\r\ninstitution, are involved in any hope of\r\nsocial reconstruction, and are not usually considered\r\nby writers on educational theory. It\r\nis these questions that I wish to discuss.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe power of education in forming character\r\nand opinion is very great and very generally\r\nrecognized. The genuine beliefs, though not\r\nusually the professed precepts, of parents and\r\nteachers are almost unconsciously acquired by\r\nmost children; and even if they depart from\r\nthese beliefs in later life, something of them remains\r\ndeeply implanted, ready to emerge in a\r\ntime of stress or crisis. Education is, as a rule,\r\nthe strongest force on the side of what exists\r\nand against fundamental change: threatened institutions,\r\nwhile they are still powerful, possess\r\nthemselves of the educational machine, and\r\ninstil a respect for their own excellence into\r\nthe malleable minds of the young. Reformers\r\nretort by trying to oust their opponents from\r\ntheir position of vantage. The children themselves\r\nare not considered by either party; they\r\nare merely so much material, to be recruited\r\ninto one army or the other. If the children\r\nthemselves were considered, education would\r\nnot aim at making them belong to this party\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_155\"\u003e155\u003c/span\u003e\r\nor that, but at enabling them to choose intelligently\r\nbetween the parties; it would aim at\r\nmaking them able to think, not at making them\r\nthink what their teachers think. Education as\r\na political weapon could not exist if we respected\r\nthe rights of children. If we respected\r\nthe rights of children, we should educate them\r\nso as to give them the knowledge and the mental\r\nhabits required for forming independent\r\nopinions; but education as a political institution\r\nendeavors to form habits and to circumscribe\r\nknowledge in such a way as to make one\r\nset of opinions inevitable.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe two principles of \u003cem\u003ejustice\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eliberty\u003c/em\u003e,\r\nwhich cover a very great deal of the social reconstruction\r\nrequired, are not by themselves\r\nsufficient where education is concerned. Justice,\r\nin the literal sense of equal rights, is obviously\r\nnot wholly possible as regards children.\r\nAnd as for liberty, it is, to begin with, essentially\r\nnegative: it condemns all avoidable interference\r\nwith freedom, without giving a positive\r\nprinciple of construction. But education\r\nis essentially constructive, and requires some\r\npositive conception of what constitutes a good\r\nlife. And although liberty is to be respected\r\nin education as much as is compatible with instruction,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_156\"\u003e156\u003c/span\u003e\r\nand although a very great deal more\r\nliberty than is customary can be allowed without\r\nloss to instruction, yet it is clear that some\r\ndeparture from complete liberty is unavoidable\r\nif children are to be taught anything, except\r\nin the case of unusually intelligent children\r\nwho are kept isolated from more normal\r\ncompanions. This is one reason for the great\r\nresponsibility which rests upon teachers: the\r\nchildren must, necessarily, be more or less at\r\nthe mercy of their elders, and cannot make\r\nthemselves the guardians of their own interests.\r\nAuthority in education is to some extent unavoidable,\r\nand those who educate have to find\r\na way of exercising authority in accordance\r\nwith the \u003cem\u003espirit\u003c/em\u003e of liberty.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhere authority is unavoidable, what is\r\nneeded is \u003cem\u003ereverence\u003c/em\u003e. A man who is to educate\r\nreally well, and is to make the young grow and\r\ndevelop into their full stature, must be filled\r\nthrough and through with the spirit of reverence.\r\nIt is reverence towards others that is\r\nlacking in those who advocate machine-made\r\ncast-iron systems: militarism, capitalism, Fabian\r\nscientific organization, and all the other\r\nprisons into which reformers and reactionaries\r\ntry to force the human spirit. In education,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_157\"\u003e157\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwith its codes of rules emanating from a Government\r\noffice, its large classes and fixed curriculum\r\nand overworked teachers, its determination\r\nto produce a dead level of glib mediocrity,\r\nthe lack of reverence for the child is all\r\nbut universal. Reverence requires imagination\r\nand vital warmth; it requires most imagination\r\nin respect of those who have least actual\r\nachievement or power. The child is weak and\r\nsuperficially foolish, the teacher is strong, and\r\nin an every-day sense wiser than the child.\r\nThe teacher without reverence, or the bureaucrat\r\nwithout reverence, easily despises the child\r\nfor these outward inferiorities. He thinks it\r\nis his duty to “mold” the child: in imagination\r\nhe is the potter with the clay. And so he\r\ngives to the child some unnatural shape, which\r\nhardens with age, producing strains and spiritual\r\ndissatisfactions, out of which grow cruelty\r\nand envy, and the belief that others must be\r\ncompelled to undergo the same distortions.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eTho man who has reverence will not think it\r\nhis duty to “mold” the young. He feels in\r\nall that lives, but especially in human beings,\r\nand most of all in children, something sacred,\r\nindefinable, unlimited, something individual\r\nand strangely precious, the growing principle\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_158\"\u003e158\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof life, an embodied fragment of the dumb striving\r\nof the world. In the presence of a child\r\nhe feels an unaccountable humility—a humility\r\nnot easily defensible on any rational\r\nground, and yet somehow nearer to wisdom than\r\nthe easy self-confidence of many parents and\r\nteachers. The outward helplessness of the\r\nchild and the appeal of dependence make him\r\nconscious of the responsibility of a trust. His\r\nimagination shows him what the child may become,\r\nfor good or evil, how its impulses may\r\nbe developed or thwarted, how its hopes must\r\nbe dimmed and the life in it grow less living,\r\nhow its trust will be bruised and its quick desires\r\nreplaced by brooding will. All this gives\r\nhim a longing to help the child in its own battle;\r\nhe would equip and strengthen it, not for\r\nsome outside end proposed by the State or by\r\nany other impersonal authority, but for the\r\nends which the child’s own spirit is obscurely\r\nseeking. The man who feels this can wield the\r\nauthority of an educator without infringing the\r\nprinciple of liberty.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is not in a spirit of reverence that education\r\nis conducted by States and Churches and\r\nthe great institutions that are subservient to\r\nthem. What is considered in education is\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_159\"\u003e159\u003c/span\u003e\r\nhardly ever the boy or girl, the young man or\r\nyoung woman, but almost always, in some form,\r\nthe maintenance of the existing order. When\r\nthe individual is considered, it is almost exclusively\r\nwith a view to worldly success—making\r\nmoney or achieving a good position. To be\r\nordinary, and to acquire the art of getting on,\r\nis the ideal which is set before the youthful\r\nmind, except by a few rare teachers who have\r\nenough energy of belief to break through the\r\nsystem within which they are expected to work.\r\nAlmost all education has a political motive: it\r\naims at strengthening some group, national or\r\nreligious or even social, in the competition with\r\nother groups. It is this motive, in the main,\r\nwhich determines the subjects taught, the\r\nknowledge offered and the knowledge withheld,\r\nand also decides what mental habits the pupils\r\nare expected to acquire. Hardly anything is\r\ndone to foster the inward growth of mind and\r\nspirit; in fact, those who have had most education\r\nare very often atrophied in their mental\r\nand spiritual life, devoid of impulse, and possessing\r\nonly certain mechanical aptitudes which\r\ntake the place of living thought.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eSome of the things which education achieves\r\nat present must continue to be achieved by education\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_160\"\u003e160\u003c/span\u003e\r\nin any civilized country. All children\r\nmust continue to be taught how to read and\r\nwrite, and some must continue to acquire the\r\nknowledge needed for such professions as medicine\r\nor law or engineering. The higher education\r\nrequired for the sciences and the arts is\r\nnecessary for those to whom it is suited. Except\r\nin history and religion and kindred matters,\r\nthe actual instruction is only inadequate,\r\nnot positively harmful. The instruction might\r\nbe given in a more liberal spirit, with more attempt\r\nto show its ultimate uses; and of course\r\nmuch of it is traditional and dead. But in the\r\nmain it is necessary, and would have to form\r\na part of any educational system.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is in history and religion and other controversial\r\nsubjects that the actual instruction is\r\npositively harmful. These subjects touch the\r\ninterests by which schools are maintained; and\r\nthe interests maintain the schools in order that\r\ncertain views on these subjects may be instilled.\r\nHistory, in every country, is so taught as to\r\nmagnify that country: children learn to believe\r\nthat their own country has always been in the\r\nright and almost always victorious, that it has\r\nproduced almost all the great men, and that it\r\nis in all respects superior to all other countries.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_161\"\u003e161\u003c/span\u003e\r\nSince these beliefs are flattering, they are easily\r\nabsorbed, and hardly ever dislodged from\r\ninstinct by later knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eTo take a simple and almost trivial example:\r\nthe facts about the battle of Waterloo are\r\nknown in great detail and with minute accuracy;\r\nbut the facts as taught in elementary\r\nschools will be widely different in England,\r\nFrance, and Germany. The ordinary English\r\nboy imagines that the Prussians played hardly\r\nany part; the ordinary German boy imagines\r\nthat Wellington was practically defeated when\r\nthe day was retrieved by Blücher’s gallantry.\r\nIf the facts were taught accurately in both\r\ncountries, national pride would not be fostered\r\nto the same extent, neither nation would feel\r\nso certain of victory in the event of war, and the\r\nwillingness to fight would be diminished. It is\r\nthis result which has to be prevented. Every\r\nState wishes to promote national pride, and is\r\nconscious that this cannot be done by unbiased\r\nhistory. The defenseless children are taught\r\nby distortions and suppressions and suggestions.\r\nThe false ideas as to the history of the\r\nworld which are taught in the various countries\r\nare of a kind which encourages strife and serves\r\nto keep alive a bigoted nationalism. If good\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_162\"\u003e162\u003c/span\u003e\r\nrelations between States were desired, one of\r\nthe first steps ought to be to submit all teaching\r\nof history to an international commission, which\r\nshould produce neutral textbooks free from the\r\npatriotic bias which is now demanded everywhere.\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_15\" id=\"FNanchor_15\"\u003e15\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eExactly the same thing applies to religion.\r\nElementary schools are practically always in\r\nthe hands either of some religious body or of\r\na State which has a certain attitude towards religion.\r\nA religious body exists through the\r\nfact that its members all have certain definite\r\nbeliefs on subjects as to which the truth is not\r\nascertainable. Schools conducted by religious\r\nbodies have to prevent the young, who are often\r\ninquiring by nature, from discovering that\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_163\"\u003e163\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthese definite beliefs are opposed by others\r\nwhich are no more unreasonable, and that many\r\nof the men best qualified to judge think that\r\nthere is no good evidence in favor of any definite\r\nbelief. When the State is militantly secular,\r\nas in France, State schools become as dogmatic\r\nas those that are in the hands of the\r\nChurches (I understand that the word “God”\r\nmust not be mentioned in a French elementary\r\nschool). The result in all these cases is the\r\nsame: free inquiry is checked, and on the most\r\nimportant matter in the world the child is met\r\nwith dogma or with stony silence.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is not only in elementary education that\r\nthese evils exist. In more advanced education\r\nthey take subtler forms, and there is more attempt\r\nto conceal them, but they are still present.\r\nEton and Oxford set a certain stamp\r\nupon a man’s mind, just as a Jesuit College\r\ndoes. It can hardly be said that Eton and Oxford\r\nhave a \u003cem\u003econscious\u003c/em\u003e purpose, but they have a\r\npurpose which is none the less strong and effective\r\nfor not being formulated. In almost all\r\nwho have been through them they produce a\r\nworship of “good form,” which is as destructive\r\nto life and thought as the medieval\r\nChurch. “Good form” is quite compatible\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_164\"\u003e164\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwith a superficial open-mindedness, a readiness\r\nto hear all sides, and a certain urbanity towards\r\nopponents. But it is not compatible with fundamental\r\nopen-mindedness, or with any inward\r\nreadiness to give weight to the other side. Its\r\nessence is the assumption that what is most important\r\nis a certain kind of behavior, a behavior\r\nwhich minimizes friction between equals\r\nand delicately impresses inferiors with a conviction\r\nof their own crudity. As a political\r\nweapon for preserving the privileges of the rich\r\nin a snobbish democracy it is unsurpassable.\r\nAs a means of producing an agreeable social\r\n\u003ci lang=\"fr\"\u003emilieu\u003c/i\u003e for those who have money with no strong\r\nbeliefs or unusual desires it has some merit.\r\nIn every other respect it is abominable.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe evils of “good form” arise from two\r\nsources: its perfect assurance of its own rightness,\r\nand its belief that correct manners are\r\nmore to be desired than intellect, or artistic\r\ncreation, or vital energy, or any of the other\r\nsources of progress in the world. Perfect assurance,\r\nby itself, is enough to destroy all mental\r\nprogress in those who have it. And when\r\nit is combined with contempt for the angularities\r\nand awkwardnesses that are almost invariably\r\nassociated with great mental power, it\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_165\"\u003e165\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbecomes a source of destruction to all who come\r\nin contact with it. “Good form” is itself dead\r\nand incapable of growth; and by its attitude to\r\nthose who are without it it spreads its own death\r\nto many who might otherwise have life. The\r\nharm which it has done to well-to-do Englishmen,\r\nand to men whose abilities have led the\r\nwell-to-do to notice them, is incalculable.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe prevention of free inquiry is unavoidable\r\nso long as the purpose of education is to\r\nproduce belief rather than thought, to compel\r\nthe young to hold positive opinions on doubtful\r\nmatters rather than to let them see the\r\ndoubtfulness and be encouraged to independence\r\nof mind. Education ought to foster the\r\nwish for truth, not the conviction that some\r\nparticular creed is the truth. But it is creeds\r\nthat hold men together in fighting organizations:\r\nChurches, States, political parties. It is\r\nintensity of belief in a creed that produces efficiency\r\nin fighting: victory comes to those who\r\nfeel the strongest certainty about matters on\r\nwhich doubt is the only rational attitude. To\r\nproduce this intensity of belief and this efficiency\r\nin fighting, the child’s nature is warped,\r\nand its free outlook is cramped, by cultivating\r\ninhibitions as a check to the growth of new\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_166\"\u003e166\u003c/span\u003e\r\nideas. In those whose minds are not very active\r\nthe result is the omnipotence of prejudice;\r\nwhile the few whose thought cannot be wholly\r\nkilled become cynical, intellectually hopeless,\r\ndestructively critical, able to make all that is\r\nliving seem foolish, unable themselves to supply\r\nthe creative impulses which they destroy in\r\nothers.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe success in fighting which is achieved by\r\nsuppressing freedom of thought is brief and\r\nvery worthless. In the long run mental vigor\r\nis as essential to success as it is to a good life.\r\nThe conception of education as a form of drill,\r\na means of producing unanimity through slavishness,\r\nis very common, and is defended chiefly\r\non the ground that it leads to victory. Those\r\nwho enjoy parallels from ancient history will\r\npoint to the victory of Sparta over Athens to\r\nenforce their moral. But it is Athens that has\r\nhad power over men’s thoughts and imaginations,\r\nnot Sparta: any one of us, if we could\r\nbe born again into some past epoch, would\r\nrather be born an Athenian than a Spartan.\r\nAnd in the modern world so much intellect is\r\nrequired in practical affairs that even the external\r\nvictory is more likely to be won by intelligence\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_167\"\u003e167\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthan by docility. Education in credulity\r\nleads by quick stages to mental decay;\r\nit is only by keeping alive the spirit of free inquiry\r\nthat the indispensable minimum of progress\r\ncan be achieved.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eCertain mental habits are commonly instilled\r\nby those who are engaged in educating: obedience\r\nand discipline, ruthlessness in the struggle\r\nfor worldly success, contempt towards opposing\r\ngroups, and an unquestioning credulity, a\r\npassive acceptance of the teacher’s wisdom.\r\nAll these habits are against life. Instead of\r\nobedience and discipline, we ought to aim\r\nat preserving independence and impulse. Instead\r\nof ruthlessness, education should try to\r\ndevelop justice in thought. Instead of contempt,\r\nit ought to instil reverence, and the attempt\r\nat understanding; towards the opinions\r\nof others it ought to produce, not necessarily\r\nacquiescence, but only such opposition as is\r\ncombined with imaginative apprehension and\r\na clear realization of the grounds for opposition.\r\nInstead of credulity, the object should\r\nbe to stimulate constructive doubt, the love of\r\nmental adventure, the sense of worlds to conquer\r\nby enterprise and boldness in thought.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_168\"\u003e168\u003c/span\u003e\r\nContentment with the \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003estatus quo\u003c/i\u003e, and subordination\r\nof the individual pupil to political\r\naims, owing to the indifference to the things\r\nof the mind, are the immediate causes of these\r\nevils; but beneath these causes there is one\r\nmore fundamental, the fact that education is\r\ntreated as a means of acquiring power over the\r\npupil, not as a means of nourishing his own\r\ngrowth. It is in this that lack of reverence\r\nshows itself; and it is only by more reverence\r\nthat a fundamental reform can be effected.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eObedience and discipline are supposed to be\r\nindispensable if order is to be kept in a class,\r\nand if any instruction is to be given. To some\r\nextent this is true; but the extent is much less\r\nthan it is thought to be by those who regard\r\nobedience and discipline as in themselves desirable.\r\nObedience, the yielding of one’s will to\r\noutside direction, is the counterpart of authority.\r\nBoth may be necessary in certain cases.\r\nRefractory children, lunatics, and criminals\r\nmay require authority, and may need to be\r\nforced to obey. But in so far as this is necessary\r\nit is a misfortune: what is to be desired\r\nis the free choice of ends with which it is not\r\nnecessary to interfere. And educational reformers\r\nhave shown that this is far more possible\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_169\"\u003e169\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthan our fathers would ever have believed.\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_16\" id=\"FNanchor_16\"\u003e16\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat makes obedience seem necessary in\r\nschools is the large classes and overworked\r\nteachers demanded by a false economy. Those\r\nwho have no experience of teaching are incapable\r\nof imagining the expense of spirit entailed\r\nby any really living instruction. They\r\nthink that teachers can reasonably be expected\r\nto work as many hours as bank clerks. Intense\r\nfatigue and irritable nerves are the result, and\r\nan absolute necessity of performing the day’s\r\ntask mechanically. But the task cannot be performed\r\nmechanically except by exacting obedience.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIf we took education seriously, and thought\r\nit as important to keep alive the minds of children\r\nas to secure victory in war, we should\r\nconduct education quite differently: we should\r\nmake sure of achieving the end, even if the\r\nexpense were a hundredfold greater than it is.\r\nTo many men and women a small amount of\r\nteaching is a delight, and can be done with a\r\nfresh zest and life which keeps most pupils interested\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_170\"\u003e170\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwithout any need of discipline. The\r\nfew who do not become interested might be\r\nseparated from the rest, and given a different\r\nkind of instruction. A teacher ought to have\r\nonly as much teaching as can be done, on most\r\ndays, with actual pleasure in the work, and\r\nwith an awareness of the pupil’s mental needs.\r\nThe result would be a relation of friendliness\r\ninstead of hostility between teacher and pupil,\r\na realization on the part of most pupils that\r\neducation serves to develop their own lives and\r\nis not merely an outside imposition, interfering\r\nwith play and demanding many hours of sitting\r\nstill. All that is necessary to this end\r\nis a (greater expenditure of money), to secure\r\nteachers with more leisure and with a natural\r\nlove of teaching.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eDiscipline, as it exists in schools, is very\r\nlargely an evil. There is a kind of discipline\r\nwhich is necessary to almost all achievement,\r\nand which perhaps is not sufficiently valued by\r\nthose who react against the purely external discipline\r\nof traditional methods. The desirable\r\nkind of discipline is the kind that comes from\r\nwithin, which consists in the power of pursuing\r\na distant object steadily, foregoing and suffering\r\nmany things on the way. This involves the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_171\"\u003e171\u003c/span\u003e\r\nsubordination of impulse to will, the power of\r\na directing action by large creative desires even\r\nat moments when they are not vividly alive.\r\nWithout this, no serious ambition, good or bad,\r\ncan be realized, no consistent purpose can dominate.\r\nThis kind of discipline is very necessary,\r\nbut can only result from strong desires for\r\nends not immediately attainable, and can only\r\nbe produced by education if education fosters\r\nsuch desires, which it seldom does at present.\r\nSuch discipline springs from one’s own will,\r\nnot from outside authority. It is not this kind\r\nwhich is sought in most schools, and it is not\r\nthis kind which seems to me an evil.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough elementary education encourages\r\nthe undesirable discipline that consists in passive\r\nobedience, and although hardly any existing\r\neducation encourages the moral discipline\r\nof consistent self-direction, there is a certain\r\nkind of purely mental discipline which is produced\r\nby the traditional higher education. The\r\nkind I mean is that which enables a man to concentrate\r\nhis thoughts at will upon any matter\r\nthat he has occasion to consider, regardless of\r\npreoccupations or boredom or intellectual difficulty.\r\nThis quality, though it has no important\r\nintrinsic excellence, greatly enhances the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_172\"\u003e172\u003c/span\u003e\r\nefficiency of the mind as an instrument. It is\r\nthis that enables a lawyer to master the scientific\r\ndetails of a patent case which he forgets as\r\nsoon as judgment has been given, or a civil\r\nservant to deal quickly with many different administrative\r\nquestions in succession. It is this\r\nthat enables men to forget private cares during\r\nbusiness hours. In a complicated world it\r\nis a very necessary faculty for those whose\r\nwork requires mental concentration.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eSuccess in producing mental discipline is the\r\nchief merit of traditional higher education. I\r\ndoubt whether it can be achieved except by compelling\r\nor persuading active attention to a prescribed\r\ntask. It is for this reason chiefly that\r\nI do not believe methods such as Madame Montessori’s\r\napplicable when the age of childhood\r\nhas been passed. The essence of her method\r\nconsists in giving a choice of occupations, any\r\none of which is interesting to most children, and\r\nall of which are instructive. The child’s attention\r\nis wholly spontaneous, as in play; it enjoys\r\nacquiring knowledge in this way, and does\r\nnot acquire any knowledge which it does not\r\ndesire. I am convinced that this is the best\r\nmethod of education with young children: the\r\nactual results make it almost impossible to think\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_173\"\u003e173\u003c/span\u003e\r\notherwise. But it is difficult to see how this\r\nmethod can lead to control of attention by the\r\nwill. Many things which must be thought\r\nabout are uninteresting, and even those that are\r\ninteresting at first often become very wearisome\r\nbefore they have been considered as long\r\nas is necessary. The power of giving prolonged\r\nattention is very important, and it is\r\nhardly to be widely acquired except as a habit\r\ninduced originally by outside pressure. Some\r\nfew boys, it is true, have sufficiently strong intellectual\r\ndesires to be willing to undergo all\r\nthat is necessary by their own initiative and\r\nfree will; but for all others an external inducement\r\nis required in order to make them learn\r\nany subject thoroughly. There is among educational\r\nreformers a certain fear of demanding\r\ngreat efforts, and in the world at large a growing\r\nunwillingness to be bored. Both these tendencies\r\nhave their good sides, but both also have\r\ntheir dangers. The mental discipline which is\r\njeopardized can be preserved by mere advice\r\nwithout external compulsion whenever a boy’s\r\nintellectual interest and ambition can be sufficiently\r\nstimulated. A good teacher ought to\r\nbe able to do this for any boy who is capable\r\nof much mental achievement; and for many of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_174\"\u003e174\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe others the present purely bookish education\r\nis probably not the best. In this way, so long\r\nas the importance of mental discipline is realized,\r\nit can probably be attained, whenever it\r\nis attainable, by appealing to the pupil’s consciousness\r\nof his own needs. So long as teachers\r\nare not expected to succeed by this method,\r\nit is easy for them to slip into a slothful dullness,\r\nand blame their pupils when the fault is\r\nreally their own.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eRuthlessness in the economic struggle will\r\nalmost unavoidably be taught in schools so long\r\nas the economic structure of society remains\r\nunchanged. This must be particularly the case\r\nin middle-class schools, which depend for their\r\nnumbers upon the good opinion of parents, and\r\nsecure the good opinion of parents by advertising\r\nthe successes of pupils. This is one of\r\nmany ways in which the competitive organization\r\nof the State is harmful. Spontaneous and\r\ndisinterested desire for knowledge is not at all\r\nuncommon in the young, and might be easily\r\naroused in many in whom it remains latent.\r\nBut it is remorselessly checked by teachers who\r\nthink only of examinations, diplomas, and degrees.\r\nFor the abler boys there is no time for\r\nthought, no time for the indulgence of intellectual\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_175\"\u003e175\u003c/span\u003e\r\ntaste, from the moment of first going to\r\nschool until the moment of leaving the university.\r\nFrom first to last there is nothing but\r\none long drudgery of examination tips and textbook\r\nfacts. The most intelligent, at the end,\r\nare disgusted with learning, longing only to forget\r\nit and to escape into a life of action. Yet\r\nthere, as before, the economic machine holds\r\nthem prisoners, and all their spontaneous desires\r\nare bruised and thwarted.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe examination system, and the fact that\r\ninstruction is treated mainly as training for a\r\nlivelihood, leads the young to regard knowledge,\r\nfrom a purely utilitarian point of view, as the\r\nroad to money, not as the gateway to wisdom.\r\nThis would not matter so much if it affected\r\nonly those who have no genuine intellectual\r\ninterests. But unfortunately it affects most\r\nthose whose intellectual interests are strongest,\r\nsince it is upon them that the pressure of examinations\r\nfalls with most severity. To them\r\nmost, but to all in some degree, education appears\r\nas a means of acquiring superiority over\r\nothers; it is infected through and through with\r\nruthlessness and glorification of social inequality.\r\nAny free, disinterested consideration\r\nshows that, whatever inequalities might remain\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_176\"\u003e176\u003c/span\u003e\r\nin a Utopia, the actual inequalities are almost\r\nall contrary to justice. But our educational\r\nsystem tends to conceal this from all except the\r\nfailures, since those who succeed are on the way\r\nto profit by the inequalities, with every encouragement\r\nfrom the men who have directed their\r\neducation.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePassive acceptance of the teacher’s wisdom\r\nis easy to most boys and girls. It involves no\r\neffort of independent thought, and seems rational\r\nbecause the teacher knows more than his\r\npupils; it is moreover the way to win the favor\r\nof the teacher unless he is a very exceptional\r\nman. Yet the habit of passive acceptance is a\r\ndisastrous one in later life. It causes men to\r\nseek a leader, and to accept as a leader whoever\r\nis established in that position. It makes\r\nthe power of Churches, Governments, party\r\ncaucuses, and all the other organizations by\r\nwhich plain men are misled into supporting old\r\nsystems which are harmful to the nation and to\r\nthemselves. It is possible that there would not\r\nbe much independence of thought even if education\r\ndid everything to promote it; but there\r\nwould certainly be more than there is at present.\r\nIf the object were to make pupils think,\r\nrather than to make them accept certain conclusions,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_177\"\u003e177\u003c/span\u003e\r\neducation would be conducted quite\r\ndifferently: there would be less rapidity of instruction\r\nand more discussion, more occasions\r\nwhen pupils were encouraged to express themselves,\r\nmore attempt to make education concern\r\nitself with matters in which the pupils felt\r\nsome interest.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAbove all, there would be an endeavor to\r\nrouse and stimulate the love of mental adventure.\r\nThe world in which we live is various\r\nand astonishing: some of the things that seem\r\nplainest grow more and more difficult the more\r\nthey are considered; other things, which might\r\nhave been thought quite impossible to discover,\r\nhave nevertheless been laid bare by genius and\r\nindustry. The powers of thought, the vast\r\nregions which it can master, the much more vast\r\nregions which it can only dimly suggest to imagination,\r\ngive to those whose minds have\r\ntraveled beyond the daily round an amazing\r\nrichness of material, an escape from the triviality\r\nand wearisomeness of familiar routine,\r\nby which the whole of life is filled with interest,\r\nand the prison walls of the commonplace are\r\nbroken down. The same love of adventure\r\nwhich takes men to the South Pole, the same\r\npassion for a conclusive trial of strength which\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_178\"\u003e178\u003c/span\u003e\r\nleads some men to welcome war, can find in\r\ncreative thought an outlet which is neither\r\nwasteful nor cruel, but increases the dignity of\r\nman by incarnating in life some of that shining\r\nsplendor which the human spirit is bringing\r\ndown out of the unknown. To give this joy, in\r\na greater or less measure, to all who are capable\r\nof it, is the supreme end for which the education\r\nof the mind is to be valued.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt will be said that the joy of mental adventure\r\nmust be rare, that there are few who can\r\nappreciate it, and that ordinary education can\r\ntake no account of so aristocratic a good. I do\r\nnot believe this. The joy of mental adventure\r\nis far commoner in the young than in grown\r\nmen and women. Among children it is very\r\ncommon, and grows naturally out of the period\r\nof make-believe and fancy. It is rare in later\r\nlife because everything is done to kill it during\r\neducation. Men fear thought as they fear nothing\r\nelse on earth—more than ruin, more even\r\nthan death. Thought is subversive and revolutionary,\r\ndestructive and terrible; thought is\r\nmerciless to privilege, established institutions,\r\nand comfortable habits; thought is anarchic and\r\nlawless, indifferent to authority, careless of the\r\nwell-tried wisdom of the ages. Thought looks\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_179\"\u003e179\u003c/span\u003e\r\ninto the pit of hell and is not afraid. It sees\r\nman, a feeble speck, surrounded by unfathomable\r\ndepths of silence; yet it bears itself\r\nproudly, as unmoved as if it were lord of the\r\nuniverse. Thought is great and swift and free,\r\nthe light of the world, and the chief glory of\r\nman.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut if thought is to become the possession of\r\nmany, not the privilege of the few, we must\r\nhave done with fear. It is fear that holds men\r\nback—fear lest their cherished beliefs should\r\nprove delusions, fear lest the institutions by\r\nwhich they live should prove harmful, fear lest\r\nthey themselves should prove less worthy of\r\nrespect than they have supposed themselves\r\nto be. “Should the working man think freely\r\nabout property? Then what will become of us,\r\nthe rich? Should young men and young women\r\nthink freely about sex? Then what will become\r\nof morality? Should soldiers think freely\r\nabout war? Then what will become of military\r\ndiscipline? Away with thought! Back\r\ninto the shades of prejudice, lest property,\r\nmorals, and war should be endangered! Better\r\nmen should be stupid, slothful, and oppressive\r\nthan that their thoughts should be free. For\r\nif their thoughts were free they might not think\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_180\"\u003e180\u003c/span\u003e\r\nas we do. And at all costs this disaster must\r\nbe averted.” So the opponents of thought\r\nargue in the unconscious depths of their souls.\r\nAnd so they act in their churches, their schools,\r\nand their universities.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eNo institution inspired by fear can further\r\nlife. Hope, not fear, is the creative principle\r\nin human affairs. All that has made man great\r\nhas sprung from the attempt to secure what is\r\ngood, not from the struggle to avert what was\r\nthought evil. It is because modern education\r\nis so seldom inspired by a great hope that it so\r\nseldom achieves a great result. The wish to\r\npreserve the past rather than the hope of creating\r\nthe future dominates the minds of those\r\nwho control the teaching of the young. Education\r\nshould not aim at a passive awareness of\r\ndead facts, but at an activity directed towards\r\nthe world that our efforts are to create. It\r\nshould be inspired, not by a regretful hankering\r\nafter the extinct beauties of Greece and the\r\nRenaissance, but by a shining vision of the society\r\nthat is to be, of the triumphs that thought\r\nwill achieve in the time to come, and of the ever-widening\r\nhorizon of man’s survey over the universe.\r\nThose who are taught in this spirit will\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_181\"\u003e181\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbe filled with life and hope and joy, able to bear\r\ntheir part in bringing to mankind a future less\r\nsomber than the past, with faith in the glory\r\nthat human effort can create.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_182\"\u003e182\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter\"\u003e\r\n\u003ch2 class=\"vspace\" id=\"VI\"\u003eVI\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003cspan class=\"subhead\"\u003eMARRIAGE AND THE POPULATION QUESTION\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"drop-cap\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap1\"\u003eThe\u003c/span\u003e influence of the Christian religion on\r\ndaily life has decayed very rapidly\r\nthroughout Europe during the last hundred\r\nyears. Not only has the proportion of nominal\r\nbelievers declined, but even among those who\r\nbelieve the intensity and dogmatism of belief is\r\nenormously diminished. But there is one social\r\ninstitution which is still profoundly affected by\r\nthe Christian tradition—I mean the institution\r\nof marriage. The law and public opinion as regards\r\nmarriage are dominated even now to a\r\nvery great extent by the teachings of the\r\nChurch, which continue to influence in this way\r\nthe lives of men, women, and children in their\r\nmost intimate concerns.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is marriage as a political institution that I\r\nwish to consider, not marriage as a matter for\r\nthe private morality of each individual. Marriage\r\nis regulated by law, and is regarded as a\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_183\"\u003e183\u003c/span\u003e\r\nmatter in which the community has a right to\r\ninterfere. It is only the action of the community\r\nin regard to marriage that I am concerned\r\nto discuss: whether the present action\r\nfurthers the life of the community, and if not,\r\nin what ways it ought to be changed.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere are two questions to be asked in regard\r\nto any marriage system: first, how it affects the\r\ndevelopment and character of the men and\r\nwomen concerned; secondly, what is its influence\r\non the propagation and education of children.\r\nThese two questions are entirely distinct, and a\r\nsystem may well be desirable from one of these\r\ntwo points of view when it is very undesirable\r\nfrom the other. I propose first to describe the\r\npresent English law and public opinion and\r\npractice in regard to the relations of the\r\nsexes, then to consider their effects as regards\r\nchildren, and finally to consider how\r\nthese effects, which are bad, could be obviated\r\nby a system which would also have a better influence\r\non the character and development of\r\nmen and women.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe law in England is based upon the expectation\r\nthat the great majority of marriages\r\nwill be lifelong. A marriage can only be dissolved\r\nif either the wife or the husband, but not\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_184\"\u003e184\u003c/span\u003e\r\nboth, can be proved to have committed adultery.\r\nIn case the husband is the “guilty party,” he\r\nmust also be guilty of cruelty or desertion.\r\nEven when these conditions are fulfilled, in\r\npractice only the well-to-do can be divorced, because\r\nthe expense is very great.\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_17\" id=\"FNanchor_17\"\u003e17\u003c/a\u003e A marriage\r\ncannot be dissolved for insanity or crime, or for\r\ncruelty, however abominable, or for desertion,\r\nor for adultery by both parties; and it cannot\r\nbe dissolved for any cause whatever if both husband\r\nand wife have agreed that they wish it dissolved.\r\nIn all these cases the law regards the\r\nman and woman as bound together for life. A\r\nspecial official, the King’s Proctor, is employed\r\nto prevent divorce when there is collusion and\r\nwhen both parties have committed adultery.\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_18\" id=\"FNanchor_18\"\u003e18\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_185\"\u003e185\u003c/span\u003e\r\nThis interesting system embodies the opinions\r\nheld by the Church of England some fifty years\r\nago, and by most Nonconformists then and\r\nnow. It rests upon the assumption that adultery\r\nis sin, and that when this sin has been committed\r\nby one party to the marriage, the other\r\nis entitled to revenge if he is rich. But when\r\nboth have committed the same sin, or when the\r\none who has not committed it feels no righteous\r\nanger, the right to revenge does not exist. As\r\nsoon as this point of view is understood, the\r\nlaw, which at first seems somewhat strange,\r\nis seen to be perfectly consistent. It rests,\r\nbroadly speaking, upon four propositions: (1)\r\nthat sexual intercourse outside marriage is sin;\r\n(2) that resentment of adultery by the “innocent”\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_186\"\u003e186\u003c/span\u003e\r\nparty is a righteous horror of wrong-doing;\r\n(3) that his resentment, but nothing else,\r\nmay be rightly regarded as making a common\r\nlife impossible; (4) that the poor have no right\r\nto fine feelings. The Church of England, under\r\nthe influence of the High Church, has ceased to\r\nbelieve the third of these propositions, but it\r\nstill believes the first and second, and does nothing\r\nactively to show that it disbelieves the\r\nfourth.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe penalty for infringing the marriage law\r\nis partly financial, but depends mainly upon\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_187\"\u003e187\u003c/span\u003e\r\npublic opinion. A rather small section of the\r\npublic genuinely believes that sexual relations\r\noutside marriage are wicked; those who believe\r\nthis are naturally kept in ignorance of the conduct\r\nof friends who feel otherwise, and are able\r\nto go through life not knowing how others live\r\nor what others think. This small section of\r\nthe public regards as depraved not only actions,\r\nbut opinions, which are contrary to its principles.\r\nIt is able to control the professions of\r\npoliticians through its influence on elections,\r\nand the votes of the House of Lords through the\r\npresence of the Bishops. By these means it\r\ngoverns legislation, and makes any change in\r\nthe marriage law almost impossible. It is able,\r\nalso, to secure in most cases that a man who\r\nopenly infringes the marriage law shall be dismissed\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_188\"\u003e188\u003c/span\u003e\r\nfrom his employment or ruined by the\r\ndefection of his customers or clients. A doctor\r\nor lawyer, or a tradesman in a country town,\r\ncannot make a living, nor can a politician be in\r\nParliament, if he is publicly known to be “immoral.”\r\nWhatever a man’s own conduct may\r\nbe, he is not likely to defend publicly those who\r\nhave been branded, lest some of the odium\r\nshould fall on him. Yet so long as a man has\r\nnot been branded, few men will object to him,\r\nwhatever they may know privately of his behavior\r\nin these respects.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOwing to the nature of the penalty, it falls\r\nvery unequally upon different professions. An\r\nactor or journalist usually escapes all punishment.\r\nAn urban workingman can almost always\r\ndo as he likes. A man of private means,\r\nunless he wishes to take part in public life, need\r\nnot suffer at all if he has chosen his friends\r\nsuitably. Women, who formerly suffered more\r\nthan men, now suffer less, since there are large\r\ncircles in which no social penalty is inflicted, and\r\na very rapidly increasing number of women who\r\ndo not believe the conventional code. But for\r\nthe majority of men outside the working classes\r\nthe penalty is still sufficiently severe to be prohibitive.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_189\"\u003e189\u003c/span\u003e\r\nThe result of this state of things is a widespread\r\nbut very flimsy hypocrisy, which allows\r\nmany infractions of the code, and forbids only\r\nthose which must become public. A man may\r\nnot live openly with a woman who is not his\r\nwife, an unmarried woman may not have a\r\nchild, and neither man nor woman may get into\r\nthe divorce court. Subject to these restrictions,\r\nthere is in practice very great freedom.\r\nIt is this practical freedom which makes the\r\nstate of the law seem tolerable to those who\r\ndo not accept the principles upon which it is\r\nbased. What has to be sacrificed to propitiate\r\nthe holders of strict views is not pleasure, but\r\nonly children and a common life and truth and\r\nhonesty. It cannot be supposed that this is\r\nthe result desired by those who maintain the\r\ncode, but equally it cannot be denied that this\r\nis the result which they do in fact achieve. Extra-matrimonial\r\nrelations which do not lead to\r\nchildren and are accompanied by a certain\r\namount of deceit remain unpunished, but severe\r\npenalties fall on those which are honest or lead\r\nto children.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWithin marriage, the expense of children\r\nleads to continually greater limitation of families.\r\nThe limitation is greatest among those\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_190\"\u003e190\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwho have most sense of parental responsibility\r\nand most wish to educate their children well,\r\nsince it is to them that the expense of children\r\nis most severe. But although the economic\r\nmotive for limiting families has hitherto probably\r\nbeen the strongest, it is being continually\r\nreinforced by another. Women are acquiring\r\nfreedom—not merely outward and formal freedom,\r\nbut inward freedom, enabling them to\r\nthink and feel genuinely, not according to received\r\nmaxims. To the men who have prated\r\nconfidently of women’s natural instincts, the result\r\nwould be surprising if they were aware of\r\nit. Very large numbers of women, when they\r\nare sufficiently free to think for themselves, do\r\nnot desire to have children, or at most desire\r\none child in order not to miss the experience\r\nwhich a child brings. There are women who\r\nare intelligent and active-minded who resent\r\nthe slavery to the body which is involved in having\r\nchildren. There are ambitious women, who\r\ndesire a career which leaves no time for children.\r\nThere are women who love pleasure and\r\ngaiety, and women who love the admiration of\r\nmen; such women will at least postpone child-bearing\r\nuntil their youth is past. All these\r\nclasses of women are rapidly becoming more\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_191\"\u003e191\u003c/span\u003e\r\nnumerous, and it may be safely assumed that\r\ntheir numbers will continue to increase for\r\nmany years to come.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is too soon to judge with any confidence\r\nas to the effects of women’s freedom upon private\r\nlife and upon the life of the nation. But I\r\nthink it is not too soon to see that it will be\r\nprofoundly different from the effect expected\r\nby the pioneers of the women’s movement.\r\nMen have invented, and women in the past have\r\noften accepted, a theory that women are the\r\nguardians of the race, that their life centers in\r\nmotherhood, that all their instincts and desires\r\nare directed, consciously or unconsciously, to\r\nthis end. Tolstoy’s Natacha illustrates this\r\ntheory: she is charming, gay, liable to passion,\r\nuntil she is married; then she becomes merely a\r\nvirtuous mother, without any mental life. This\r\nresult has Tolstoy’s entire approval. It must\r\nbe admitted that it is very desirable from the\r\npoint of view of the nation, whatever we may\r\nthink of it in relation to private life. It must\r\nalso be admitted that it is probably common\r\namong women who are physically vigorous and\r\nnot highly civilized. But in countries like\r\nFrance and England it is becoming increasingly\r\nrare. More and more women find motherhood\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_192\"\u003e192\u003c/span\u003e\r\nunsatisfying, not what their needs demand.\r\nAnd more and more there comes to be a conflict\r\nbetween their personal development and the future\r\nof the community. It is difficult to know\r\nwhat ought to be done to mitigate this conflict,\r\nbut I think it is worth while to see what are\r\nlikely to be its effects if it is not mitigated.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOwing to the combination of economic prudence\r\nwith the increasing freedom of women,\r\nthere is at present a selective birth-rate of a very\r\nsingular kind.\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_19\" id=\"FNanchor_19\"\u003e19\u003c/a\u003e In France the population is practically\r\nstationary, and in England it is rapidly\r\nbecoming so; this means that some sections are\r\ndwindling while others are increasing. Unless\r\nsome change occurs, the sections that are\r\ndwindling will practically become extinct, and\r\nthe population will be almost wholly replenished\r\nfrom the sections that are now increasing.\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_20\" id=\"FNanchor_20\"\u003e20\u003c/a\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_193\"\u003e193\u003c/span\u003e\r\nThe sections that are dwindling include the\r\nwhole middle-class and the skilled artisans.\r\nThe sections that are increasing are the very\r\npoor, the shiftless and drunken, the feeble-minded—feeble-minded\r\nwomen, especially, are\r\napt to be very prolific. There is an increase in\r\nthose sections of the population which still\r\nactively believe the Catholic religion, such as\r\nthe Irish and the Bretons, because the Catholic\r\nreligion forbids limitation of families. Within\r\nthe classes that are dwindling, it is the best elements\r\nthat are dwindling most rapidly. Working-class\r\nboys of exceptional ability rise, by\r\nmeans of scholarships, into the professional\r\nclass; they naturally desire to marry into the\r\nclass to which they belong by education, not into\r\nthe class from which they spring; but as they\r\nhave no money beyond what they earn, they cannot\r\nmarry young, or afford a large family. The\r\nresult is that in each generation the best elements\r\nare extracted from the working classes\r\nand artificially sterilized, at least in comparison\r\nwith those who are left. In the professional\r\nclasses the young women who have initiative,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_194\"\u003e194\u003c/span\u003e\r\nenergy, or intelligence are as a rule not inclined\r\nto marry young, or to have more than one\r\nor two children when they do marry. Marriage\r\nhas been in the past the only obvious means of\r\nlivelihood for women; pressure from parents\r\nand fear of becoming an old maid combined to\r\nforce many women to marry in spite of a complete\r\nabsence of inclination for the duties of a\r\nwife. But now a young woman of ordinary intelligence\r\ncan easily earn her own living, and\r\ncan acquire freedom and experience without the\r\npermanent ties of a husband and a family of\r\nchildren. The result is that if she marries she\r\nmarries late.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eFor these reasons, if an average sample of\r\nchildren were taken out of the population of\r\nEngland, and their parents were examined, it\r\nwould be found that prudence, energy, intellect,\r\nand enlightenment were less common among\r\nthe parents than in the population in general;\r\nwhile shiftlessness, feeble-mindedness, stupidity,\r\nand superstition were more common than\r\nin the population in general. It would be found\r\nthat those who are prudent or energetic or intelligent\r\nor enlightened actually fail to reproduce\r\ntheir own numbers; that is to say, they do\r\nnot on the average have as many as two children\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_195\"\u003e195\u003c/span\u003e\r\neach who survive infancy. On the other hand,\r\nthose who have the opposite qualities have,\r\non the average, more than two children each,\r\nand more than reproduce their own numbers.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is impossible to estimate the effect which\r\nthis will have upon the character of the population\r\nwithout a much greater knowledge of\r\nheredity than exists at present. But so long as\r\nchildren continue to live with their parents, parental\r\nexample and early education must have\r\na great influence in developing their character,\r\neven if we leave heredity entirely out of account.\r\nWhatever may be thought of genius, there can\r\nbe no doubt that intelligence, whether through\r\nheredity or through education, tends to run in\r\nfamilies, and that the decay of the families in\r\nwhich it is common must lower the mental\r\nstandard of the population. It seems unquestionable\r\nthat if our economic system and our\r\nmoral standards remain unchanged, there will\r\nbe, in the next two or three generations, a rapid\r\nchange for the worse in the character of the\r\npopulation in all civilized countries, and an\r\nactual diminution of numbers in the most civilized.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe diminution of numbers, in all likelihood,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_196\"\u003e196\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwill rectify itself in time through the elimination\r\nof those characteristics which at present\r\nlead to a small birth-rate. Men and women who\r\ncan still believe the Catholic faith will have a\r\nbiological advantage; gradually a race will grow\r\nup which will be impervious to all the assaults\r\nof reason, and will believe imperturbably that\r\nlimitation of families leads to hell-fire. Women\r\nwho have mental interests, who care about art\r\nor literature or politics, who desire a career or\r\nwho value their liberty, will gradually grow\r\nrarer, and be more and more replaced by a\r\nplacid maternal type which has no interests outside\r\nthe home and no dislike of the burden of\r\nmotherhood. This result, which ages of masculine\r\ndomination have vainly striven to achieve,\r\nis likely to be the final outcome of women’s\r\nemancipation and of their attempt to enter upon\r\na wider sphere than that to which the jealousy\r\nof men confined them in the past.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePerhaps, if the facts could be ascertained,\r\nit would be found that something of the same\r\nkind occurred in the Roman Empire. The decay\r\nof energy and intelligence during the second,\r\nthird, and fourth centuries of our era has\r\nalways remained more or less mysterious. But\r\nthere is reason to think that then, as now, the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_197\"\u003e197\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbest elements of the population in each generation\r\nfailed to reproduce themselves, and that\r\nthe least vigorous were, as a rule, those to whom\r\nthe continuance of the race was due. One might\r\nbe tempted to suppose that civilization, when it\r\nhas reached a certain height, becomes unstable,\r\nand tends to decay through some inherent weakness,\r\nsome failure to adapt the life of instinct to\r\nthe intense mental life of a period of high culture.\r\nBut such vague theories have always\r\nsomething glib and superstitious which makes\r\nthem worthless as scientific explanations or as\r\nguides to action. It is not by a literary formula,\r\nbut by detailed and complex thought, that\r\na true solution is to be found.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eLet us first be clear as to what we desire.\r\nThere is no importance in an increasing population;\r\non the contrary, if the population of Europe\r\nwere stationary, it would be much easier to\r\npromote economic reform and to avoid war.\r\nWhat is regrettable \u003cem\u003eat present\u003c/em\u003e is not the decline\r\nof the birth-rate in itself, but the fact that the\r\ndecline is greatest in the best elements of the\r\npopulation. There is reason, however, to fear\r\nin the future three bad results: first, an absolute\r\ndecline in the numbers of English, French, and\r\nGermans; secondly, as a consequence of this\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_198\"\u003e198\u003c/span\u003e\r\ndecline, their subjugation by less civilized races\r\nand the extinction of their tradition; thirdly, a\r\nrevival of their numbers on a much lower plane\r\nof civilization, after generations of selection of\r\nthose who have neither intelligence nor foresight.\r\nIf this result is to be avoided, the present\r\nunfortunate selectiveness of the birth-rate\r\nmust be somehow stopped.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe problem is one which applies to the whole\r\nof Western civilization. There is no difficulty\r\nin discovering a theoretical solution, but there\r\nis great difficulty in persuading men to adopt a\r\nsolution in practice, because the effects to be\r\nfeared are not immediate and the subject is one\r\nupon which people are not in the habit of using\r\ntheir reason. If a rational solution is ever\r\nadopted, the cause will probably be international\r\nrivalry. It is obvious that if one State—say\r\nGermany—adopted a rational means of\r\ndealing with the matter, it would acquire an\r\nenormous advantage over other States unless\r\nthey did likewise. After the war, it is possible\r\nthat population questions will attract more attention\r\nthan they did before, and it is likely that\r\nthey will be studied from the point of view\r\nof international rivalry. This motive, unlike\r\nreason and humanity, is perhaps strong enough\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_199\"\u003e199\u003c/span\u003e\r\nto overcome men’s objections to a scientific\r\ntreatment of the birth-rate.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn the past, at most periods and in most societies,\r\nthe instincts of men and women led of\r\nthemselves to a more than sufficient birth-rate;\r\nMalthus’s statement of the population question\r\nhad been true enough up to the time when he\r\nwrote. It is still true of barbarous and semi-civilized\r\nraces, and of the worst elements among\r\ncivilized races. But it has become false as regards\r\nthe more civilized half of the population\r\nin Western Europe and America. Among\r\nthem, instinct no longer suffices to keep numbers\r\neven stationary.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe may sum up the reasons for this in order\r\nof importance, as \u003cspan class=\"locked\"\u003efollows:—\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e1. The expense of children is very great if\r\nparents are conscientious.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e2. An increasing number of women desire to\r\nhave no children, or only one or two, in order\r\nnot to be hampered in their own careers.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e3. Owing to the excess of women, a large\r\nnumber of women remain unmarried. These\r\nwomen, though not debarred in practice from\r\nrelations with men, are debarred by the code\r\nfrom having children. In this class are to be\r\nfound an enormous and increasing number of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_200\"\u003e200\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwomen who earn their own living as typists, in\r\nshops, or otherwise. The war has opened many\r\nemployments to women from which they were\r\nformerly excluded, and this change is probably\r\nonly in part temporary.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIf the sterilizing of the best parts of the population\r\nis to be arrested, the first and most pressing\r\nnecessity is the removal of the economic\r\nmotives for limiting families. The expense of\r\nchildren ought to be borne wholly by the community.\r\nTheir food and clothing and education\r\nought to be provided, not only to the very poor\r\nas a matter of charity, but to all classes as a\r\nmatter of public interest. In addition to this, a\r\nwoman who is capable of earning money, and\r\nwho abandons wage-earning for motherhood,\r\nought to receive from the State as nearly as possible\r\nwhat she would have received if she had not\r\nhad children. The only condition attached to\r\nState maintenance of the mother and the children\r\nshould be that both parents are physically\r\nand mentally sound in all ways likely to affect\r\nthe children. Those who are not sound should\r\nnot be debarred from having children, but\r\nshould continue, as at present, to bear the expense\r\nof children themselves.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt ought to be recognized that the law is only\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_201\"\u003e201\u003c/span\u003e\r\nconcerned with marriage through the question\r\nof children, and should be indifferent to what\r\nis called “morality,” which is based upon custom\r\nand texts of the Bible, not upon any real\r\nconsideration of the needs of the community.\r\nThe excess women, who at present are in every\r\nway discouraged from having children, ought\r\nno longer to be discouraged. If the State is to\r\nundertake the expense of children, it has the\r\nright, on eugenic grounds, to know who the\r\nfather is, and to demand a certain stability in a\r\nunion. But there is no reason to demand or\r\nexpect a lifelong stability, or to exact any\r\nground for divorce beyond mutual consent.\r\nThis would make it possible for the women who\r\nmust at present remain unmarried to have children\r\nif they wished it. In this way an enormous\r\nand unnecessary waste would be prevented,\r\nand a great deal of needless unhappiness\r\nwould be avoided.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere is no necessity to begin such a system\r\nall at once. It might be begun tentatively\r\nwith certain exceptionally desirable sections of\r\nthe community. It might then be extended\r\ngradually, with the experience of its working\r\nwhich had been derived from the first experiment.\r\nIf the birth-rate were very much increased,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_202\"\u003e202\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe eugenic conditions exacted might\r\nbe made more strict.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere are of course various practical difficulties\r\nin the way of such a scheme: the opposition\r\nof the Church and the upholders of traditional\r\nmorality, the fear of weakening parental\r\nresponsibility, and the expense. All these, however,\r\nmight be overcome. But there remains\r\none difficulty which it seems impossible to overcome\r\ncompletely in England, and that is, that\r\nthe whole conception is anti-democratic, since it\r\nregards some men as better than others, and\r\nwould demand that the State should bestow a\r\nbetter education upon the children of some men\r\nthan upon the children of others. This is contrary\r\nto all the principles of progressive politics\r\nin England. For this reason it can hardly be\r\nexpected that any such method of dealing with\r\nthe population question will ever be adopted in\r\nits entirety in this country. Something of the\r\nsort may well be done in Germany, and if so, it\r\nwill assure German hegemony as no merely military\r\nvictory could do. But among ourselves we\r\ncan only hope to see it adopted in some partial,\r\npiecemeal fashion, and probably only after a\r\nchange in the economic structure of society\r\nwhich will remove most of the artificial inequalities\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_203\"\u003e203\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthat progressive parties are rightly trying\r\nto diminish.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eSo far we have been considering the question\r\nof the reproduction of the race, rather than the\r\neffect of sex relations in fostering or hindering\r\nthe development of men and women. From the\r\npoint of view of the race, what seems needed is\r\na complete removal of the economic burdens due\r\nto children from all parents who are not physically\r\nor mentally unfit, and as much freedom\r\nin the law as is compatible with public knowledge\r\nof paternity. Exactly the same changes\r\nseem called for when the question is considered\r\nfrom the point of view of the men and women\r\nconcerned.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn regard to marriage, as with all the other\r\ntraditional bonds between human beings, a very\r\nextraordinary change is taking place, wholly\r\ninevitable, wholly necessary as a stage in the development\r\nof a new life, but by no means wholly\r\nsatisfactory until it is completed. All the traditional\r\nbonds were based on \u003cem\u003eauthority\u003c/em\u003e—of the\r\nking, the feudal baron, the priest, the father, the\r\nhusband. All these bonds, just because they\r\nwere based on authority, are dissolving or already\r\ndissolved, and the creation of other bonds\r\nto take their place is as yet very incomplete.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_204\"\u003e204\u003c/span\u003e\r\nFor this reason human relations have at present\r\nan unusual triviality, and do less than they did\r\nformerly to break down the hard walls of the\r\nEgo.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe ideal of marriage in the past depended\r\nupon the authority of the husband, which was\r\nadmitted as a right by the wife. The husband\r\nwas free, the wife was a willing slave. In all\r\nmatters which concerned husband and wife\r\njointly, it was taken for granted that the husband’s\r\nfiat should be final. The wife was expected\r\nto be faithful, while the husband, except\r\nin very religious societies, was only expected to\r\nthrow a decent veil over his infidelities. Families\r\ncould not be limited except by continence,\r\nand a wife had no recognized right to demand\r\ncontinence, however she might suffer from frequent\r\nchildren.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eSo long as the husband’s right to authority\r\nwas unquestioningly believed by both men and\r\nwomen, this system was fairly satisfactory, and\r\nafforded to both a certain instinctive fulfilment\r\nwhich is rarely achieved among educated people\r\nnow. Only one will, the husband’s, had to\r\nbe taken into account, and there was no need of\r\nthe difficult adjustments required when common\r\ndecisions have to be reached by two equal wills.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_205\"\u003e205\u003c/span\u003e\r\nThe wife’s desires were not treated seriously\r\nenough to enable them to thwart the husband’s\r\nneeds, and the wife herself, unless she was exceptionally\r\nselfish, did not seek self-development,\r\nor see in marriage anything but an opportunity\r\nfor duties. Since she did not seek or\r\nexpect much happiness, she suffered less, when\r\nhappiness was not attained, than a woman does\r\nnow: her suffering contained no element of indignation\r\nor surprise, and did not readily turn\r\ninto bitterness and sense of injury.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe saintly, self-sacrificing woman whom our\r\nancestors praised had her place in a certain\r\norganic conception of society, the conception of\r\nthe ordered hierarchy of authorities which dominated\r\nthe Middle Ages. She belongs to the same\r\norder of ideas as the faithful servant, the loyal\r\nsubject, and the orthodox son of the Church.\r\nThis whole order of ideas has vanished from the\r\ncivilized world, and it is to be hoped that it has\r\nvanished for ever, in spite of the fact that the\r\nsociety which it produced was vital and in some\r\nways full of nobility. The old order has been\r\ndestroyed by the new ideals of justice and\r\nliberty, beginning with religion, passing on to\r\npolitics, and reaching at last the private relations\r\nof marriage and the family. When once\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_206\"\u003e206\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe question has been asked, “Why should a\r\nwoman submit to a man?” when once the answers\r\nderived from tradition and the Bible have\r\nceased to satisfy, there is no longer any possibility\r\nof maintaining the old subordination. To\r\nevery man who has the power of thinking impersonally\r\nand freely, it is obvious, as soon as\r\nthe question is asked, that the rights of women\r\nare precisely the same as the rights of men.\r\nWhatever dangers and difficulties, whatever\r\ntemporary chaos, may be incurred in the transition\r\nto equality, the claims of reason are so insistent\r\nand so clear that no opposition to them\r\ncan hope to be long successful.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eMutual liberty, which is now demanded, is\r\nmaking the old form of marriage impossible.\r\nBut a new form, which shall be an equally good\r\nvehicle for instinct, and an equal help to spiritual\r\ngrowth, has not yet been developed. For\r\nthe present, women who are conscious of liberty\r\nas something to be preserved are also conscious\r\nof the difficulty of preserving it. The wish for\r\nmastery is an ingredient in most men’s sexual\r\npassions, especially in those which are strong\r\nand serious. It survives in many men whose\r\ntheories are entirely opposed to despotism.\r\nThe result is a fight for liberty on the one side\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_207\"\u003e207\u003c/span\u003e\r\nand for life on the other. Women feel that they\r\nmust protect their individuality; men feel, often\r\nvery dumbly, that the repression of instinct\r\nwhich is demanded of them is incompatible with\r\nvigor and initiative. The clash of these opposing\r\nmoods makes all real mingling of personalities\r\nimpossible; the man and woman remain\r\nhard, separate units, continually asking themselves\r\nwhether anything of value to themselves\r\nis resulting from the union. The effect is that\r\nrelations tend to become trivial and temporary,\r\na pleasure rather than the satisfaction of a\r\nprofound need, an excitement, not an attainment.\r\nThe fundamental loneliness into which\r\nwe are born remains untouched, and the hunger\r\nfor inner companionship remains unappeased.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eNo cheap and easy solution of this trouble\r\nis possible. It is a trouble which affects most\r\nthe most civilized men and women, and is an outcome\r\nof the increasing sense of individuality\r\nwhich springs inevitably from mental progress.\r\nI doubt if there is any radical cure except in\r\nsome form of religion, so firmly and sincerely\r\nbelieved as to dominate even the life of instinct.\r\nThe individual is not the end and aim of his own\r\nbeing: outside the individual, there is the community,\r\nthe future of mankind, the immensity\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_208\"\u003e208\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof the universe in which all our hopes and fears\r\nare a mere pin-point. A man and woman with\r\nreverence for the spirit of life in each other,\r\nwith an equal sense of their own unimportance\r\nbeside the whole life of man, may become comrades\r\nwithout interference with liberty, and\r\nmay achieve the union of instinct without doing\r\nviolence to the life of mind and spirit. As\r\nreligion dominated the old form of marriage, so\r\nreligion must dominate the new. But it must\r\nbe a new religion, based upon liberty, justice,\r\nand love, not upon authority and law and hell-fire.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA bad effect upon the relations of men and\r\nwomen has been produced by the romantic\r\nmovement, through directing attention to what\r\nought to be an incidental good, not the purpose\r\nfor which relations exist. Love is what gives\r\nintrinsic value to a marriage, and, like art and\r\nthought, it is one of the supreme things which\r\nmake human life worth preserving. But though\r\nthere is no good marriage without love, the best\r\nmarriages have a purpose which goes beyond\r\nlove. The love of two people for each other is\r\ntoo circumscribed, too separate from the community,\r\nto be by itself the main purpose of a\r\ngood life. It is not in itself a sufficient source\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_209\"\u003e209\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof activities, it is not sufficiently prospective, to\r\nmake an existence in which ultimate satisfaction\r\ncan be found. It brings its great moments, and\r\nthen its times which are less great, which are\r\nunsatisfying because they are less great. It\r\nbecomes, sooner or later, retrospective, a tomb\r\nof dead joys, not a well-spring of new life. This\r\nevil is inseparable from any purpose which is\r\nto be achieved in a single supreme emotion.\r\nThe only adequate purposes are those which\r\nstretch out into the future, which can never be\r\nfully achieved, but are always growing, and infinite\r\nwith the infinity of human endeavor. And\r\nit is only when love is linked to some infinite\r\npurpose of this kind that it can have the seriousness\r\nand depth of which it is capable.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eFor the great majority of men and women\r\nseriousness in sex relations is most likely to\r\nbe achieved through children. Children are to\r\nmost people rather a need than a desire: instinct\r\nis as a rule only consciously directed towards\r\nwhat used to lead to children. The desire\r\nfor children is apt to develop in middle life,\r\nwhen the adventure of one’s own existence is\r\npast, when the friendships of youth seem less\r\nimportant than they once did, when the prospect\r\nof a lonely old age begins to terrify, and the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_210\"\u003e210\u003c/span\u003e\r\nfeeling of having no share in the future becomes\r\noppressive. Then those who, while they were\r\nyoung, have had no sense that children would\r\nbe a fulfilment of their needs, begin to regret\r\ntheir former contempt for the normal, and to\r\nenvy acquaintances whom before they had\r\nthought humdrum. But owing to economic\r\ncauses it is often impossible for the young, and\r\nespecially for the best of the young, to have\r\nchildren without sacrificing things of vital importance\r\nto their own lives. And so youth\r\npasses, and the need is felt too late.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eNeeds without corresponding desires have\r\ngrown increasingly common as life has grown\r\nmore different from that primitive existence\r\nfrom which our instincts are derived, and to\r\nwhich, rather than to that of the present day,\r\nthey are still very largely adapted. An unsatisfied\r\nneed produces, in the end, as much\r\npain and as much distortion of character as if\r\nit had been associated with a conscious desire.\r\nFor this reason, as well as for the sake of the\r\nrace, it is important to remove the present economic\r\ninducements to childlessness. There is\r\nno necessity whatever to urge parenthood upon\r\nthose who feel disinclined to it, but there is\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_211\"\u003e211\u003c/span\u003e\r\nnecessity not to place obstacles in the way of\r\nthose who have no such disinclination.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn speaking of the importance of preserving\r\nseriousness in the relations of men and women,\r\nI do not mean to suggest that relations which\r\nare not serious are always harmful. Traditional\r\nmorality has erred by laying stress on\r\nwhat ought not to happen, rather than on what\r\nought to happen. What is important is that\r\nmen and women should find, sooner or later, the\r\nbest relation of which their natures are capable.\r\nIt is not always possible to know in advance\r\nwhat will be the best, or to be sure of not missing\r\nthe best if everything that can be doubted is rejected.\r\nAmong primitive races, a man wants a\r\nfemale, a woman wants a male, and there is no\r\nsuch differentiation as makes one a much more\r\nsuitable companion than another. But with the\r\nincreasing complexity of disposition that civilized\r\nlife brings, it becomes more and more difficult\r\nto find the man or woman who will bring\r\nhappiness, and more and more necessary to\r\nmake it not too difficult to acknowledge a mistake.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe present marriage law is an inheritance\r\nfrom a simpler age, and is supported, in the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_212\"\u003e212\u003c/span\u003e\r\nmain, by unreasoning fears and by contempt\r\nfor all that is delicate and difficult in the life of\r\nthe mind. Owing to the law, large numbers of\r\nmen and women are condemned, so far as their\r\nostensible relations are concerned, to the society\r\nof an utterly uncongenial companion, with\r\nall the embittering consciousness that escape is\r\npractically impossible. In these circumstances,\r\nhappier relations with others are often sought,\r\nbut they have to be clandestine, without a common\r\nlife, and without children. Apart from the\r\ngreat evil of being clandestine, such relations\r\nhave some almost inevitable drawbacks. They\r\nare liable to emphasize sex unduly, to be exciting\r\nand disturbing; and it is hardly possible that\r\nthey should bring a real satisfaction of instinct.\r\nIt is the combination of love, children, and a\r\ncommon life that makes the best relation between\r\na man and a woman. The law at present\r\nconfines children and a common life within the\r\nbonds of monogamy, but it cannot confine love.\r\nBy forcing many to separate love from children\r\nand a common life, the law cramps their lives,\r\nprevents them from reaching the full measure\r\nof their possible development, and inflicts a\r\nwholly unnecessary torture upon those who are\r\nnot content to become frivolous.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_213\"\u003e213\u003c/span\u003e\r\nTo sum up: The present state of the law, of\r\npublic opinion, and of our economic system is\r\ntending to degrade the quality of the race, by\r\nmaking the worst half of the population the parents\r\nof more than half of the next generation.\r\nAt the same time, women’s claim to liberty is\r\nmaking the old form of marriage a hindrance to\r\nthe development of both men and women. A\r\nnew system is required, if the European nations\r\nare not to degenerate, and if the relations of\r\nmen and women are to have the strong happiness\r\nand organic seriousness which belonged to\r\nthe best marriages in the past. The new system\r\nmust be based upon the fact that to produce\r\nchildren is a service to the State, and ought not\r\nto expose parents to heavy pecuniary penalties.\r\nIt will have to recognize that neither the\r\nlaw nor public opinion should concern itself\r\nwith the private relations of men and women,\r\nexcept where children are concerned. It ought\r\nto remove the inducements to make relations\r\nclandestine and childless. It ought to admit\r\nthat, although lifelong monogamy is best when\r\nit is successful, the increasing complexity of our\r\nneeds makes it increasingly often a failure for\r\nwhich divorce is the best preventive. Here, as\r\nelsewhere, liberty is the basis of political wisdom.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_214\"\u003e214\u003c/span\u003e\r\nAnd when liberty has been won, what remains\r\nto be desired must be left to the conscience\r\nand religion of individual men and\r\nwomen.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_215\"\u003e215\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter\"\u003e\r\n\u003ch2 class=\"vspace\" id=\"VII\"\u003eVII\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003cspan class=\"subhead\"\u003eRELIGION AND THE CHURCHES\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"drop-cap al\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap1\"\u003eAlmost\u003c/span\u003e all the changes which the world\r\nhas undergone since the end of the Middle\r\nAges are due to the discovery and diffusion of\r\nnew knowledge. This was the primary cause of\r\nthe Renaissance, the Reformation, and the industrial\r\nrevolution. It was also, very directly,\r\nthe cause of the decay of dogmatic religion.\r\nThe study of classical texts and early Church\r\nhistory, Copernican astronomy and physics,\r\nDarwinian biology and comparative anthropology,\r\nhave each in turn battered down some\r\npart of the edifice of Catholic dogma, until, for\r\nalmost all thinking and instructed people, the\r\nmost that seems defensible is some inner spirit,\r\nsome vague hope, and some not very definite\r\nfeeling of moral obligation. This result might\r\nperhaps have remained limited to the educated\r\nminority but for the fact that the Churches have\r\nalmost everywhere opposed political progress\r\nwith the same bitterness with which they have\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_216\"\u003e216\u003c/span\u003e\r\nopposed progress in thought. Political conservatism\r\nhas brought the Churches into conflict\r\nwith whatever was vigorous in the working\r\nclasses, and has spread free thought in wide\r\ncircles which might otherwise have remained\r\northodox for centuries. The decay of dogmatic\r\nreligion is, for good or evil, one of the most\r\nimportant facts in the modern world. Its effects\r\nhave hardly yet begun to show themselves:\r\nwhat they will be it is impossible to say, but they\r\nwill certainly be profound and far-reaching.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eReligion is partly personal, partly social: to\r\nthe Protestant primarily personal, to the Catholic\r\nprimarily social. It is only when the two\r\nelements are intimately blended that religion\r\nbecomes a powerful force in molding society.\r\nThe Catholic Church, as it existed from the time\r\nof Constantine to the time of the Reformation,\r\nrepresented a blending which would have\r\nseemed incredible if it had not been actually\r\nachieved, the blending of Christ and Cæsar, of\r\nthe morality of humble submission with the\r\npride of Imperial Rome. Those who loved the\r\none could find it in the Thebaid; those who loved\r\nthe other could admire it in the pomp of metropolitan\r\narchbishops. In St. Francis and Innocent\r\nIII the same two sides of the Church are\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_217\"\u003e217\u003c/span\u003e\r\nstill represented. But since the Reformation\r\npersonal religion has been increasingly outside\r\nthe Catholic Church, while the religion which\r\nhas remained Catholic has been increasingly a\r\nmatter of institutions and politics and historic\r\ncontinuity. This division has weakened the\r\nforce of religion: religious bodies have not been\r\nstrengthened by the enthusiasm and single-mindedness\r\nof the men in whom personal religion\r\nis strong, and these men have not found\r\ntheir teaching diffused and made permanent by\r\nthe power of ecclesiastical institutions.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe Catholic Church achieved, during the\r\nMiddle Ages, the most organic society and the\r\nmost harmonious inner synthesis of instinct,\r\nmind, and spirit, that the Western world has\r\never known. St. Francis, Thomas Aquinas, and\r\nDante represent its summit as regards individual\r\ndevelopment. The cathedrals, the mendicant\r\nOrders, and the triumph of the Papacy\r\nover the Empire represent its supreme\r\npolitical success. But the perfection which had\r\nbeen achieved was a narrow perfection: instinct,\r\nmind, and spirit all suffered from curtailment in\r\norder to fit into the pattern; laymen found themselves\r\nsubject to the Church in ways which they\r\nresented, and the Church used its power for\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_218\"\u003e218\u003c/span\u003e\r\nrapacity and oppression. The perfect synthesis\r\nwas an enemy to new growth, and after the\r\ntime of Dante all that was living in the world\r\nhad first to fight for its right to live against the\r\nrepresentatives of the old order. This fight is\r\neven now not ended. Only when it is quite\r\nended, both in the external world of politics and\r\nin the internal world of men’s own thoughts,\r\nwill it be possible for a new organic society and\r\na new inner synthesis to take the place which\r\nthe Church held for a thousand years.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe clerical profession suffers from two\r\ncauses, one of which it shares with some other\r\nprofessions, while the other is peculiar to itself.\r\nThe cause peculiar to it is the convention that\r\nclergymen are more virtuous than other men.\r\nAny average selection of mankind, set apart and\r\ntold that it excels the rest in virtue, must tend\r\nto sink below the average. This is an ancient\r\ncommonplace in regard to princes and those who\r\nused to be called “the great.” But it is no less\r\ntrue as regards those of the clergy who are not\r\ngenuinely and by nature as much better than the\r\naverage as they are conventionally supposed to\r\nbe. The other source of harm to the clerical\r\nprofession is endowments. Property which is\r\nonly available for those who will support an established\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_219\"\u003e219\u003c/span\u003e\r\ninstitution has a tendency to warp\r\nmen’s judgments as to the excellence of the institution.\r\nThe tendency is aggravated when\r\nthe property is associated with social consideration\r\nand opportunities for petty power. It is at\r\nits worst when the institution is tied by law to\r\nan ancient creed, almost impossible to change,\r\nand yet quite out of touch with the unfettered\r\nthought of the present day. All these causes\r\ncombine to damage the moral force of the\r\nChurch.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is not so much that the creed of the Church\r\nis the wrong one. What is amiss is the mere\r\nexistence of a creed. As soon as income, position,\r\nand power are dependent upon acceptance\r\nof no matter what creed, intellectual honesty is\r\nimperiled. Men will tell themselves that a\r\nformal assent is justified by the good which\r\nit will enable them to do. They fail to realize\r\nthat, in those whose mental life has any\r\nvigor, loss of complete intellectual integrity puts\r\nan end to the power of doing good, by producing\r\ngradually in all directions an inability to\r\nsee truth simply. The strictness of party discipline\r\nhas introduced the same evil in politics;\r\nthere, because the evil is comparatively new, it\r\nis visible to many who think it unimportant as\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_220\"\u003e220\u003c/span\u003e\r\nregards the Church. But the evil is greater as\r\nregards the Church, because religion is of more\r\nimportance than politics, and because it is more\r\nnecessary that the exponents of religion should\r\nbe wholly free from taint.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe evils we have been considering seem inseparable\r\nfrom the existence of a professional\r\npriesthood. If religion is not to be harmful in a\r\nworld of rapid change, it must, like the Society\r\nof Friends, be carried on by men who have other\r\noccupations during the week, who do their religious\r\nwork from enthusiasm, without receiving\r\nany payment. And such men, because they\r\nknow the everyday world, are not likely to fall\r\ninto a remote morality which no one regards as\r\napplicable to common life. Being free, they\r\nwill not be bound to reach certain conclusions\r\ndecided in advance, but will be able to consider\r\nmoral and religious questions genuinely, without\r\nbias. Except in a quite stationary society,\r\nno religious life can be living or a real support\r\nto the spirit unless it is freed from the incubus\r\nof a professional priesthood.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is largely for these reasons that so little\r\nof what is valuable in morals and religion comes\r\nnowadays from the men who are eminent in the\r\nreligious world. It is true that among professed\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_221\"\u003e221\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbelievers there are many who are wholly\r\nsincere, who feel still the inspiration which\r\nChristianity brought before it had been weakened\r\nby the progress of knowledge. These sincere\r\nbelievers are valuable to the world because\r\nthey keep alive the conviction that the life of\r\nthe spirit is what is of most importance to men\r\nand women. Some of them, in all the countries\r\nnow at war, have had the courage to preach\r\npeace and love in the name of Christ, and have\r\ndone what lay in their power to mitigate the bitterness\r\nof hatred. All praise is due to these\r\nmen, and without them the world would be even\r\nworse than it is.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut it is not through even the most sincere\r\nand courageous believers in the traditional religion\r\nthat a new spirit can come into the world.\r\nIt is not through them that religion can be\r\nbrought back to those who have lost it because\r\ntheir minds were active, not because their spirit\r\nwas dead. Believers in the traditional religion\r\nnecessarily look to the past for inspiration\r\nrather than to the future. They seek wisdom\r\nin the teaching of Christ, which, admirable as it\r\nis, remains quite inadequate for many of the\r\nsocial and spiritual issues of modern life. Art\r\nand intellect and all the problems of government\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_222\"\u003e222\u003c/span\u003e\r\nare ignored in the Gospels. Those who,\r\nlike Tolstoy, endeavor seriously to take the\r\nGospels as a guide to life are compelled to regard\r\nthe ignorant peasant as the best type of\r\nman, and to brush aside political questions by an\r\nextreme and impracticable anarchism.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIf a religious view of life and the world is\r\never to reconquer the thoughts and feelings of\r\nfree-minded men and women, much that we are\r\naccustomed to associate with religion will have\r\nto be discarded. The first and greatest change\r\nthat is required is to establish a morality of\r\ninitiative, not a morality of submission, a morality\r\nof hope rather than fear, of things to be\r\ndone rather than of things to be left undone.\r\nIt is not the whole duty of man to\r\nslip through the world so as to escape the\r\nwrath of God. The world is \u003cem\u003eour\u003c/em\u003e world, and it\r\nrests with us to make it a heaven or a hell. The\r\npower is ours, and the kingdom and the glory\r\nwould be ours also if we had courage and insight\r\nto create them. The religious life that we\r\nmust seek will not be one of occasional solemnity\r\nand superstitious prohibitions, it will not be sad\r\nor ascetic, it will concern itself little with rules\r\nof conduct. It will be inspired by a vision of\r\nwhat human life may be, and will be happy with\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_223\"\u003e223\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe joy of creation, living in a large free world\r\nof initiative and hope. It will love mankind,\r\nnot for what they are to the outward eye, but\r\nfor what imagination shows that they have it\r\nin them to become. It will not readily condemn,\r\nbut it will give praise to positive achievement\r\nrather than negative sinlessness, to the joy\r\nof life, the quick affection, the creative insight,\r\nby which the world may grow young and beautiful\r\nand filled with vigor.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“Religion” is a word which has many meanings\r\nand a long history. In origin, it was concerned\r\nwith certain rites, inherited from a remote\r\npast, performed originally for some reason\r\nlong since forgotten, and associated from time\r\nto time with various myths to account for their\r\nsupposed importance. Much of this lingers\r\nstill. A religious man is one who goes to\r\nchurch, a communicant, one who “practises,” as\r\nCatholics say. How he behaves otherwise, or\r\nhow he feels concerning life and man’s place in\r\nthe world, does not bear upon the question\r\nwhether he is “religious” in this simple but historically\r\ncorrect sense. Many men and women\r\nare religious in this sense without having in\r\ntheir natures anything that deserves to be called\r\nreligion in the sense in which I mean the word.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_224\"\u003e224\u003c/span\u003e\r\nThe mere familiarity of the Church service has\r\nmade them impervious to it; they are unconscious\r\nof all the history and human experience\r\nby which the liturgy has been enriched, and\r\nunmoved by the glibly repeated words of the\r\nGospel, which condemn almost all the activities\r\nof those who fancy themselves disciples of\r\nChrist. This fate must overtake any habitual\r\nrite: it is impossible that it should continue to\r\nproduce much effect after it has been performed\r\nso often as to grow mechanical.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe activities of men may be roughly derived\r\nfrom three sources, not in actual fact sharply\r\nseparate one from another, but sufficiently distinguishable\r\nto deserve different names. The\r\nthree sources I mean are instinct, mind, and\r\nspirit, and of these three it is the life of the\r\nspirit that makes religion.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe life of instinct includes all that man\r\nshares with the lower animals, all that is concerned\r\nwith self-preservation and reproduction\r\nand the desires and impulses derivative from\r\nthese. It includes vanity and love of possessions,\r\nlove of family, and even much of what\r\nmakes love of country. It includes all the impulses\r\nthat are essentially concerned with the\r\nbiological success of oneself or one’s group—for\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_225\"\u003e225\u003c/span\u003e\r\namong gregarious animals the life of instinct\r\nincludes the group. The impulses which\r\nit includes may not in fact make for success,\r\nand may often in fact militate against it, but\r\nare nevertheless those of which success is the\r\n\u003ci lang=\"fr\"\u003eraison d’être\u003c/i\u003e, those which express the animal\r\nnature of man and his position among a world\r\nof competitors.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe life of the mind is the life of pursuit of\r\nknowledge, from mere childish curiosity up to\r\nthe greatest efforts of thought. Curiosity exists\r\nin animals, and serves an obvious biological\r\npurpose; but it is only in men that it passes\r\nbeyond the investigation of particular objects\r\nwhich may be edible or poisonous, friendly or\r\nhostile. Curiosity is the primary impulse out\r\nof which the whole edifice of scientific knowledge\r\nhas grown. Knowledge has been found\r\nso useful that most actual acquisition of it is\r\nno longer prompted by curiosity; innumerable\r\nother motives now contribute to foster the intellectual\r\nlife. Nevertheless, direct love of\r\nknowledge and dislike of error still play a very\r\nlarge part, especially with those who are most\r\nsuccessful in learning. No man acquires much\r\nknowledge unless the acquisition is in itself delightful\r\nto him, apart from any consciousness\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_226\"\u003e226\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof the use to which the knowledge may be put.\r\nThe impulse to acquire knowledge and the activities\r\nwhich center round it constitute what I\r\nmean by the life of the mind. The life of the\r\nmind consists of thought which is wholly or partially\r\nimpersonal, in the sense that it concerns\r\nitself with objects on their own account, and\r\nnot merely on account of their bearing upon\r\nour instinctive life.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe life of the spirit centers round impersonal\r\nfeeling, as the life of the mind centers\r\nround impersonal thought. In this sense, all\r\nart belongs to the life of the spirit, though its\r\ngreatness is derived from its being also intimately\r\nbound up with the life of instinct. Art\r\nstarts from instinct and rises into the region\r\nof the spirit; religion starts from the spirit\r\nand endeavors to dominate and inform the life\r\nof instinct. It is possible to feel the same interest\r\nin the joys and sorrows of others as in\r\nour own, to love and hate independently of all\r\nrelation to ourselves, to care about the destiny\r\nof man and the development of the universe\r\nwithout a thought that we are personally involved.\r\nReverence and worship, the sense of\r\nan obligation to mankind, the feeling of imperativeness\r\nand acting under orders which traditional\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_227\"\u003e227\u003c/span\u003e\r\nreligion has interpreted as Divine inspiration,\r\nall belong to the life of the spirit.\r\nAnd deeper than all these lies the sense of a\r\nmystery half revealed, of a hidden wisdom and\r\nglory, of a transfiguring vision in which common\r\nthings lose their solid importance and become\r\na thin veil behind which the ultimate truth\r\nof the world is dimly seen. It is such feelings\r\nthat are the source of religion, and if they were\r\nto die most of what is best would vanish out\r\nof life.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eInstinct, mind, and spirit are all essential to\r\na full life; each has its own excellence and its\r\nown corruption. Each can attain a spurious\r\nexcellence at the expense of the others; each\r\nhas a tendency to encroach upon the others;\r\nbut in the life which is to be sought all three\r\nwill be developed in coördination, and intimately\r\nblended in a single harmonious whole.\r\nAmong uncivilized men instinct is supreme, and\r\nmind and spirit hardly exist. Among educated\r\nmen at the present day mind is developed, as\r\na rule, at the expense of both instinct and spirit,\r\nproducing a curious inhumanity and lifelessness,\r\na paucity of both personal and impersonal\r\ndesires, which leads to cynicism and intellectual\r\ndestructiveness. Among ascetics and\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_228\"\u003e228\u003c/span\u003e\r\nmost of those who would be called saints, the life\r\nof the spirit has been developed at the expense\r\nof instinct and mind, producing an outlook\r\nwhich is impossible to those who have a healthy\r\nanimal life and to those who have a love of active\r\nthought. It is not in any of these one-sided\r\ndevelopments that we can find wisdom or\r\na philosophy which will bring new life to the\r\ncivilized world.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAmong civilized men and women at the present\r\nday it is rare to find instinct, mind, and\r\nspirit in harmony. Very few have achieved a\r\npractical philosophy which gives its due place\r\nto each; as a rule, instinct is at war with either\r\nmind or spirit, and mind and spirit are at war\r\nwith each other. This strife compels men and\r\nwomen to direct much of their energy inwards,\r\ninstead of being able to expend it all in objective\r\nactivities. When a man achieves a precarious\r\ninward peace by the defeat of a part of\r\nhis nature, his vital force is impaired, and his\r\ngrowth is no longer quite healthy. If men are\r\nto remain whole, it is very necessary that they\r\nshould achieve a reconciliation of instinct,\r\nmind, and spirit.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eInstinct is the source of vitality, the bond\r\nthat unites the life of the individual with the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_229\"\u003e229\u003c/span\u003e\r\nlife of the race, the basis of all profound sense\r\nof union with others, and the means by which\r\nthe collective life nourishes the life of the separate\r\nunits. But instinct by itself leaves us\r\npowerless to control the forces of Nature, either\r\nin ourselves or in our physical environment,\r\nand keeps us in bondage to the same unthinking\r\nimpulse by which the trees grow. Mind can\r\nliberate us from this bondage, by the power of\r\nimpersonal thought, which enables us to judge\r\ncritically the purely biological purposes towards\r\nwhich instinct more or less blindly tends. But\r\nmind, in its dealings with instinct, is \u003cem\u003emerely\u003c/em\u003e\r\ncritical: so far as instinct is concerned, the unchecked\r\nactivity of the mind is apt to be destructive\r\nand to generate cynicism. Spirit is an\r\nantidote to the cynicism of mind: it universalizes\r\nthe emotions that spring from instinct, and\r\nby universalizing them makes them impervious\r\nto mental criticism. And when thought is informed\r\nby spirit it loses its cruel, destructive\r\nquality; it no longer promotes the death of instinct,\r\nbut only its purification from insistence\r\nand ruthlessness and its emancipation from the\r\nprison walls of accidental circumstance. It is\r\ninstinct that gives force, mind that gives the\r\nmeans of directing force to desired ends, and\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_230\"\u003e230\u003c/span\u003e\r\nspirit that suggests impersonal uses for force\r\nof a kind that thought cannot discredit by criticism.\r\nThis is an outline of the parts that instinct,\r\nmind, and spirit would play in a harmonious\r\nlife.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eInstinct, mind, and spirit are each a help to\r\nthe others when their development is free and\r\nunvitiated; but when corruption comes into any\r\none of the three, not only does that one fail, but\r\nthe others also become poisoned. All three\r\nmust grow together. And if they are to grow\r\nto their full stature in any one man or woman,\r\nthat man or woman must not be isolated, but\r\nmust be one of a society where growth is not\r\nthwarted and made crooked.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe life of instinct, when it is unchecked by\r\nmind or spirit, consists of instinctive cycles,\r\nwhich begin with impulses to more or less definite\r\nacts, and pass on to satisfaction of needs\r\nthrough the consequences of these impulsive\r\nacts. Impulse and desire are not directed\r\ntowards the whole cycle, but only towards its\r\ninitiation: the rest is left to natural causes.\r\nWe desire to eat, but we do not desire to be\r\nnourished unless we are valetudinarians. Yet\r\nwithout the nourishment eating is a mere momentary\r\npleasure, not part of the general impulse\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_231\"\u003e231\u003c/span\u003e\r\nto life. Men desire sexual intercourse,\r\nbut they do not as a rule desire children\r\nstrongly or often. Yet without the hope of\r\nchildren and its occasional realization, sexual\r\nintercourse remains for most people an isolated\r\nand separate pleasure, not uniting their personal\r\nlife with the life of mankind, not continuous\r\nwith the central purposes by which they\r\nlive, and not capable of bringing that profound\r\nsense of fulfilment which comes from completion\r\nby children. Most men, unless the impulse\r\nis atrophied through disuse, feel a desire to create\r\nsomething, great or small according to their\r\ncapacities. Some few are able to satisfy this\r\ndesire: some happy men can create an Empire,\r\na science, a poem, or a picture. The men of science,\r\nwho have less difficulty than any others\r\nin finding an outlet for creativeness, are the\r\nhappiest of intelligent men in the modern\r\nworld, since their creative activity affords full\r\nsatisfaction to mind and spirit as well as to the\r\ninstinct of creation.\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_21\" id=\"FNanchor_21\"\u003e21\u003c/a\u003e In them a beginning is\r\nto be seen of the new way of life which is to be\r\nsought; in their happiness we may perhaps find\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_232\"\u003e232\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe germ of a future happiness for all mankind.\r\nThe rest, with few exceptions, are\r\nthwarted in their creative impulses. They cannot\r\nbuild their own house or make their own\r\ngarden, or direct their own labor to producing\r\nwhat their free choice would lead them to produce.\r\nIn this way the instinct of creation,\r\nwhich should lead on to the life of mind and\r\nspirit, is checked and turned aside. Too often\r\nit is turned to destruction, as the only effective\r\naction which remains possible. Out of its defeat\r\ngrows envy, and out of envy grows the impulse\r\nto destroy the creativeness of more fortunate\r\nmen. This is one of the greatest sources\r\nof corruption in the life of instinct.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe life of instinct is important, not only on\r\nits own account, or because of the direct usefulness\r\nof the actions which it inspires, but also\r\nbecause, if it is unsatisfactory, the individual\r\nlife becomes detached and separated from the\r\ngeneral life of man. All really profound sense\r\nof unity with others depends upon instinct, upon\r\ncoöperation or agreement in some instinctive\r\npurpose. This is most obvious in the relations\r\nof men and women and parents and children.\r\nBut it is true also in wider relations. It is true\r\nof large assemblies swayed by a strong common\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_233\"\u003e233\u003c/span\u003e\r\nemotion, and even of a whole nation in times of\r\nstress. It is part of what makes the value of\r\nreligion as a social institution. Where this\r\nfeeling is wholly absent, other human beings\r\nseem distant and aloof. Where it is actively\r\nthwarted, other human beings become objects\r\nof instinctive hostility. The aloofness or the\r\ninstinctive hostility may be masked by religious\r\nlove, which can be given to all men regardless\r\nof their relation to ourselves. But religious\r\nlove does not bridge the gulf that parts man\r\nfrom man: it looks across the gulf, it views\r\nothers with compassion or impersonal sympathy,\r\nbut it does not live with the same life with\r\nwhich they live. Instinct alone can do this, but\r\nonly when it is fruitful and sane and direct. To\r\nthis end it is necessary that instinctive cycles\r\nshould be fairly often completed, not interrupted\r\nin the middle of their course. At present\r\nthey are constantly interrupted, partly by\r\npurposes which conflict with them for economic\r\nor other reasons, partly by the pursuit of pleasure,\r\nwhich picks out the most agreeable part of\r\nthe cycle and avoids the rest. In this way instinct\r\nis robbed of its importance and seriousness;\r\nit becomes incapable of bringing any real\r\nfulfilment, its demands grow more and more\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_234\"\u003e234\u003c/span\u003e\r\nexcessive, and life becomes no longer a whole\r\nwith a single movement, but a series of detached\r\nmoments, some of them pleasurable, most of\r\nthem full of weariness and discouragement.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe life of the mind, although supremely excellent\r\nin itself, cannot bring health into the\r\nlife of instinct, except when it results in a not\r\ntoo difficult outlet for the instinct of creation.\r\nIn other cases it is, as a rule, too widely separated\r\nfrom instinct, too detached, too destitute\r\nof inward growth, to afford either a vehicle for\r\ninstinct or a means of subtilizing and refining\r\nit. Thought is in its essence impersonal and\r\ndetached, instinct is in its essence personal and\r\ntied to particular circumstances: between the\r\ntwo, unless both reach a high level, there is a\r\nwar which is not easily appeased. This is the\r\nfundamental reason for vitalism, futurism,\r\npragmatism, and the various other philosophies\r\nwhich advertise themselves as vigorous and\r\nvirile. All these represent the attempt to find\r\na mode of thought which shall not be hostile to\r\ninstinct. The attempt, in itself, is deserving of\r\npraise, but the solution offered is far too facile.\r\nWhat is proposed amounts to a subordination of\r\nthought to instinct, a refusal to allow thought\r\nto achieve its own ideal. Thought which does\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_235\"\u003e235\u003c/span\u003e\r\nnot rise above what is personal is not thought\r\nin any true sense: it is merely a more or less\r\nintelligent use of instinct. It is thought and\r\nspirit that raise man above the level of the\r\nbrutes. By discarding them we may lose the\r\nproper excellence of men, but cannot acquire\r\nthe excellence of animals. Thought must\r\nachieve its full growth before a reconciliation\r\nwith instinct is attempted.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhen refined thought and unrefined instinct\r\ncoexist, as they do in many intellectual men,\r\nthe result is a complete disbelief in any important\r\ngood to be achieved by the help of instinct.\r\nAccording to their disposition, some such men\r\nwill as far as possible discard instinct and become\r\nascetic, while others will accept it as a necessity,\r\nleaving it degraded and separated from\r\nall that is really important in their lives.\r\nEither of these courses prevents instinct from\r\nremaining vital, or from being a bond with others;\r\neither produces a sense of physical solitude,\r\na gulf across which the minds and spirits\r\nof others may speak, but not their instincts.\r\nTo very many men, the instinct of patriotism,\r\nwhen the war broke out, was the first instinct\r\nthat had bridged the gulf, the first that had made\r\nthem feel a really profound unity with others.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_236\"\u003e236\u003c/span\u003e\r\nThis instinct, just because, in its intense form,\r\nit was new and unfamiliar, had remained uninfected\r\nby thought, not paralyzed or devitalized\r\nby doubt and cold detachment. The sense of\r\nunity which it brought is capable of being\r\nbrought by the instinctive life of more normal\r\ntimes, if thought and spirit are not hostile to\r\nit. And so long as this sense of unity is absent,\r\ninstinct and spirit cannot be in harmony,\r\nnor can the life of the community have vigor\r\nand the seeds of new growth.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe life of the mind, because of its detachment,\r\ntends to separate a man inwardly from\r\nother men, so long as it is not balanced by the\r\nlife of the spirit. For this reason, mind without\r\nspirit can render instinct corrupt or atrophied,\r\nbut cannot add any excellence to the life\r\nof instinct. On this ground, some men are hostile\r\nto thought. But no good purpose is served\r\nby trying to prevent the growth of thought,\r\nwhich has its own insistence, and if checked in\r\nthe directions in which it tends naturally, will\r\nturn into other directions where it is more harmful.\r\nAnd thought is in itself god-like: if the\r\nopposition between thought and instinct were\r\nirreconcilable, it would be thought that ought\r\nto conquer. But the opposition is not irreconciliable:\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_237\"\u003e237\u003c/span\u003e\r\nall that is necessary is that both\r\nthought and instinct should be informed by the\r\nlife of the spirit.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn order that human life should have vigor,\r\nit is necessary for the instinctive impulses to\r\nbe strong and direct; but in order that human\r\nlife should be good, these impulses must be dominated\r\nand controlled by desires less personal\r\nand ruthless, less liable to lead to conflict than\r\nthose that are inspired by instinct alone. Something\r\nimpersonal and universal is needed over\r\nand above what springs out of the principle of\r\nindividual growth. It is this that is given by\r\nthe life of the spirit.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePatriotism affords an example of the kind of\r\ncontrol which is needed. Patriotism is compounded\r\nout of a number of instinctive feelings\r\nand impulses: love of home, love of those whose\r\nways and outlook resemble our own, the impulse\r\nto coöperation in a group, the sense of pride in\r\nthe achievements of one’s group. All these impulses\r\nand desires, like everything belonging to\r\nthe life of instinct, are personal, in the sense\r\nthat the feelings and actions which they inspire\r\ntowards others are determined by the relation\r\nof those others to ourselves, not by what those\r\nothers are intrinsically. All these impulses\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_238\"\u003e238\u003c/span\u003e\r\nand desires unite to produce a love of man’s\r\nown country which is more deeply implanted in\r\nthe fiber of his being, and more closely united\r\nto his vital force, than any love not rooted in\r\ninstinct. But if spirit does not enter in to generalize\r\nlove of country, the exclusiveness of instinctive\r\nlove makes it a source of hatred of\r\nother countries. What spirit can effect is to\r\nmake us realize that other countries equally are\r\nworthy of love, that the vital warmth which\r\nmakes us love our own country reveals to us\r\nthat it deserves to be loved, and that only the\r\npoverty of our nature prevents us from loving\r\nall countries as we love our own. In this way\r\ninstinctive love can be extended in imagination,\r\nand a sense of the value of all mankind can grow\r\nup, which is more living and intense than any\r\nthat is possible to those whose instinctive love\r\nis weak. Mind can only show us that it is irrational\r\nto love our own country best; it can\r\nweaken patriotism, but cannot strengthen the\r\nlove of all mankind. Spirit alone can do this,\r\nby extending and universalizing the love that is\r\nborn of instinct. And in doing this it checks\r\nand purifies whatever is insistent or ruthless\r\nor oppressively personal in the life of instinct.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe same extension through spirit is necessary\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_239\"\u003e239\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwith other instinctive loves, if they are not\r\nto be enfeebled or corrupted by thought. The\r\nlove of husband and wife is capable of being a\r\nvery good thing, and when men and women are\r\nsufficiently primitive nothing but instinct and\r\ngood fortune is needed to make it reach a certain\r\nlimited perfection. But as thought begins\r\nto assert its right to criticize instinct the old\r\nsimplicity becomes impossible. The love of\r\nhusband and wife, as unchecked instinct leaves\r\nit, is too narrow and personal to stand against\r\nthe shafts of satire, until it is enriched by the\r\nlife of the spirit. The romantic view of marriage,\r\nwhich our fathers and mothers professed\r\nto believe, will not survive an imaginative peregrination\r\ndown a street of suburban villas, each\r\ncontaining its couple, each couple having congratulated\r\nthemselves as they first crossed the\r\nthreshold, that here they could love in peace,\r\nwithout interruption from others, without contact\r\nwith the cold outside world. The separateness\r\nand stuffiness, the fine names for cowardices\r\nand timid vanities, that are shut within the\r\nfour walls of thousands upon thousands of little\r\nvillas, present themselves coldly and mercilessly\r\nto those in whom mind is dominant at\r\nthe expense of spirit.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_240\"\u003e240\u003c/span\u003e\r\nNothing is good in the life of a human being\r\nexcept the very best that his nature can achieve.\r\nAs men advance, things which have been good\r\ncease to be good, merely because something better\r\nis possible. So it is with the life of instinct:\r\nfor those whose mental life is strong, much that\r\nwas really good while mind remained less developed\r\nhas now become bad merely through\r\nthe greater degree of truth in their outlook on\r\nthe world. The instinctive man in love feels\r\nthat his emotion is unique, that the lady of his\r\nheart has perfections such as no other woman\r\never equaled. The man who has acquired the\r\npower of impersonal thought realizes, when he\r\nis in love, that he is one of so many millions\r\nof men who are in love at this moment, that not\r\nmore than one of all the millions can be right\r\nin thinking his love supreme, and that it is not\r\nlikely that that one is oneself. He perceives\r\nthat the state of being in love in those whose instinct\r\nis unaffected by thought or spirit, is a\r\nstate of illusion, serving the ends of Nature and\r\nmaking a man a slave to the life of the species,\r\nnot a willing minister to the impersonal ends\r\nwhich he sees to be good. Thought rejects this\r\nslavery; for no end that Nature may have in\r\nview will thought abdicate, or forgo its right\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_241\"\u003e241\u003c/span\u003e\r\nto think truly. “Better the world should perish\r\nthan that I or any other human being should\r\nbelieve a lie”—this is the religion of thought,\r\nin whose scorching flames the dross of the world\r\nis being burnt away. It is a good religion, and\r\nits work of destruction must be completed. But\r\nit is not all that man has need of. New growth\r\nmust come after the destruction, and new\r\ngrowth can come only through the spirit.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBoth patriotism and the love of man and\r\nwoman, when they are merely instinctive, have\r\nthe same defects: their exclusions, their enclosing\r\nwalls, their indifference or hostility to the\r\noutside world. It is through this that thought\r\nis led to satire, that comedy has infected what\r\nmen used to consider their holiest feelings. The\r\nsatire and the comedy are justified, but not the\r\ndeath of instinct which they may produce if\r\nthey remain in supreme command. They are\r\njustified, not as the last word of wisdom but as\r\nthe gateway of pain through which men pass\r\nto a new life, where instinct is purified and yet\r\nnourished by the deeper desires and insight of\r\nspirit.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe man who has the life of the spirit within\r\nhim views the love of man and woman, both\r\nin himself and in others, quite differently from\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_242\"\u003e242\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe man who is exclusively dominated by mind.\r\nHe sees, in his moments of insight, that in all\r\nhuman beings there is something deserving of\r\nlove, something mysterious, something appealing,\r\na cry out of the night, a groping journey,\r\nand a possible victory. When his instinct loves,\r\nhe welcomes its help in seeing and feeling the\r\nvalue of the human being whom he loves. Instinct\r\nbecomes a reinforcement to spiritual insight.\r\nWhat instinct tells him spiritual insight\r\nconfirms, however much the mind may be aware\r\nof littlenesses, limitations, and enclosing walls\r\nthat prevent the spirit from shining forth. His\r\nspirit divines in all men what his instinct shows\r\nhim in the object of his love.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe love of parents for children has need of\r\nthe same transformation. The purely instinctive\r\nlove, unchecked by thought, uninformed by\r\nspirit, is exclusive, ruthless, and unjust. No\r\nbenefit to others is felt, by the purely instinctive\r\nparent, to be worth an injury to one’s own\r\nchildren. Honor and conventional morality\r\nplace certain important practical limitations on\r\nthe vicarious selfishness of parents, since a civilized\r\ncommunity exacts a certain minimum before\r\nit will give respect. But within the limits\r\nallowed by public opinion, parental affection,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_243\"\u003e243\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwhen it is merely instinctive, will seek the advantage\r\nof children without regard to others.\r\nMind can weaken the impulse to injustice, and\r\ndiminish the force of instinctive love, but it cannot\r\nkeep the whole force of instinctive love and\r\nturn it to more universal ends. Spirit can do\r\nthis. It can leave the instinctive love of children\r\nundimmed, and extend the poignant devotion\r\nof a parent, in imagination, to the whole\r\nworld. And parental love itself will prompt\r\nthe parent who has the life of the spirit to give\r\nto his children the sense of justice, the readiness\r\nfor service, the reverence, the will that controls\r\nself-seeking, which he feels to be a greater good\r\nthan any personal success.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe life of the spirit has suffered in recent\r\ntimes by its association with traditional religion,\r\nby its apparent hostility to the life of the\r\nmind, and by the fact that it has seemed to center\r\nin renunciation. The life of the spirit demands\r\nreadiness for renunciation when the occasion\r\narises, but is in its essence as positive\r\nand as capable of enriching individual existence\r\nas mind and instinct are. It brings with it the\r\njoy of vision, of the mystery and profundity of\r\nthe world, of the contemplation of life, and\r\nabove all the joy of universal love. It liberates\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_244\"\u003e244\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthose who have it from the prison-house of insistent\r\npersonal passion and mundane cares.\r\nIt gives freedom and breadth and beauty to\r\nmen’s thoughts and feelings, and to all their\r\nrelations with others. It brings the solution of\r\ndoubts, the end of the feeling that all is vanity.\r\nIt restores harmony between mind and instinct,\r\nand leads the separated unit back into\r\nhis place in the life of mankind. For those who\r\nhave once entered the world of thought, it is\r\nonly through spirit that happiness and peace\r\ncan return.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_245\"\u003e245\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter\"\u003e\r\n\u003ch2 class=\"vspace\" id=\"VIII\"\u003eVIII\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003cspan class=\"subhead\"\u003eWHAT WE CAN DO\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"drop-cap\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap1\"\u003eWhat\u003c/span\u003e can we do for the world while we\r\nlive?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eMany men and women would wish to serve\r\nmankind, but they are perplexed and their\r\npower seems infinitesimal. Despair seizes\r\nthem; those who have the strongest passion suffer\r\nmost from the sense of impotence, and are\r\nmost liable to spiritual ruin through lack of\r\nhope.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eSo long as we think only of the immediate\r\nfuture, it seems that what we can do is not much.\r\nIt is probably impossible for us to bring the war\r\nto an end. We cannot destroy the excessive\r\npower of the State or of private property. We\r\ncannot, here and now, bring new life into education.\r\nIn such matters, though we may see\r\nthe evil, we cannot quickly cure it by any of the\r\nordinary methods of politics. We must recognize\r\nthat the world is ruled in a wrong spirit,\r\nand that a change of spirit will not come from\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_246\"\u003e246\u003c/span\u003e\r\none day to the next. Our expectations must\r\nnot be for to-morrow, but for the time when\r\nwhat is thought now by a few shall have become\r\nthe common thought of many. If we have courage\r\nand patience, we can think the thoughts and\r\nfeel the hopes by which, sooner or later, men\r\nwill be inspired, and weariness and discouragement\r\nwill be turned into energy and ardor. For\r\nthis reason, the first thing we have to do is to\r\nbe clear in our own minds as to the kind of life\r\nwe think good and the kind of change that we\r\ndesire in the world.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe ultimate power of those whose thought\r\nis vital is far greater than it seems to men who\r\nsuffer from the irrationality of contemporary\r\npolitics. Religious toleration was once the solitary\r\nspeculation of a few bold philosophers.\r\nDemocracy, as a theory, arose among a handful\r\nof men in Cromwell’s army; by them, after\r\nthe Restoration, it was carried to America,\r\nwhere it came to fruition in the War of Independence.\r\nFrom America, Lafayette and the\r\nother Frenchmen who fought by the side of\r\nWashington brought the theory of democracy\r\nto France, where it united itself with the teaching\r\nof Rousseau and inspired the Revolution.\r\nSocialism, whatever we may think of its merits,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_247\"\u003e247\u003c/span\u003e\r\nis a great and growing power, which is transforming\r\neconomic and political life; and socialism\r\nowes its origin to a very small number of\r\nisolated theorists. The movement against the\r\nsubjection of women, which has become irresistible\r\nand is not far from complete triumph, began\r\nin the same way with a few impracticable\r\nidealists—Mary Wollstonecraft, Shelley, John\r\nStuart Mill. The power of thought, in the long\r\nrun, is greater than any other human power.\r\nThose who have the ability to think and the\r\nimagination to think in accordance with men’s\r\nneeds, are likely to achieve the good they aim\r\nat sooner or later, though probably not while\r\nthey are still alive.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut those who wish to gain the world by\r\nthought must be content to lose it as a support\r\nin the present. Most men go through life without\r\nmuch questioning, accepting the beliefs and\r\npractices which they find current, feeling that\r\nthe world will be their ally if they do not put\r\nthemselves in opposition to it. New thought\r\nabout the world is incompatible with this comfortable\r\nacquiescence; it requires a certain intellectual\r\ndetachment, a certain solitary energy,\r\na power of inwardly dominating the world and\r\nthe outlook that the world engenders. Without\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_248\"\u003e248\u003c/span\u003e\r\nsome willingness to be lonely new thought cannot\r\nbe achieved. And it will not be achieved to\r\nany purpose if the loneliness is accompanied by\r\naloofness, so that the wish for union with others\r\ndies, or if intellectual detachment leads to contempt.\r\nIt is because the state of mind required\r\nis subtle and difficult, because it is hard to be\r\nintellectually detached yet not aloof, that fruitful\r\nthought on human affairs is not common, and\r\nthat most theorists are either conventional or\r\nsterile. The right kind of thought is rare and\r\ndifficult, but it is not impotent. It is not the\r\nfear of impotence that need turn us aside from\r\nthought if we have the wish to bring new hope\r\ninto the world.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn seeking a political theory which is to be\r\nuseful at any given moment, what is wanted is\r\nnot the invention of a Utopia, but the discovery\r\nof the best direction of movement. The direction\r\nwhich is good at one time may be superficially\r\nvery different from that which is good\r\nat another time. Useful thought is that which\r\nindicates the right direction for the present\r\ntime. But in judging what is the right direction\r\nthere are two general principles which are\r\nalways applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e1. The growth and vitality of individuals and\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_249\"\u003e249\u003c/span\u003e\r\ncommunities is to be promoted as far as possible.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e2. The growth of one individual or one community\r\nis to be as little as possible at the expense\r\nof another.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe second of these principles, as applied by\r\nan individual in his dealings with others, is the\r\nprinciple of \u003cem\u003ereverence\u003c/em\u003e, that the life of another\r\nhas the same importance which we feel in our\r\nown life. As applied impersonally in politics,\r\nit is the principle of \u003cem\u003eliberty\u003c/em\u003e, or rather it includes\r\nthe principle of liberty as a part. Liberty in\r\nitself is a negative principle; it tells us not to\r\ninterfere, but does not give any basis for construction.\r\nIt shows that many political and social\r\ninstitutions are bad and ought to be swept\r\naway, but it does not show what ought to be put\r\nin their place. For this reason a further principle\r\nis required, if our political theory is not\r\nto be purely destructive.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe combination of our two principles is not\r\nin practice an easy matter. Much of the vital\r\nenergy of the world runs into channels which\r\nare oppressive. The Germans have shown\r\nthemselves extraordinarily full of vital energy,\r\nbut unfortunately in a form which seems incompatible\r\nwith the vitality of their neighbors.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_250\"\u003e250\u003c/span\u003e\r\nEurope in general has more vital energy than\r\nAfrica, but it has used its energy to drain\r\nAfrica, through industrialism, of even such life\r\nas the negroes possessed. The vitality of\r\nsoutheastern Europe is being drained to supply\r\ncheap labor for the enterprise of American millionaires.\r\nThe vitality of men has been in the\r\npast a hindrance to the development of women,\r\nand it is possible that in the near future women\r\nmay become a similar hindrance to men. For\r\nsuch reasons the principle of reverence, though\r\nnot in itself sufficient, is of very great importance,\r\nand is able to indicate many of the political\r\nchanges that the world requires.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn order that both principles may be capable\r\nof being satisfied, what is needed is a unifying\r\nor integration, first of our individual lives, then\r\nof the life of the community and of the world,\r\nwithout sacrifice of individuality. The life of\r\nan individual, the life of a community, and even\r\nthe life of mankind, ought to be, not a number\r\nof separate fragments but in some sense a\r\nwhole. When this is the case, the growth of\r\nthe individual is fostered, and is not incompatible\r\nwith the growth of other individuals. In\r\nthis way the two principles are brought into\r\nharmony.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_251\"\u003e251\u003c/span\u003e\r\nWhat integrates an individual life is a consistent\r\ncreative purpose or unconscious direction.\r\nInstinct alone will not suffice to give unity\r\nto the life of a civilized man or woman: there\r\nmust be some dominant object, an ambition, a\r\ndesire for scientific or artistic creation, a religious\r\nprinciple, or strong and lasting affections.\r\nUnity of life is very difficult for a man or\r\nwoman who has suffered a certain kind of defeat,\r\nthe kind by which what should have been\r\nthe dominant impulse is checked and made abortive.\r\nMost professions inflict this kind of defeat\r\nupon a man at the very outset. If a man\r\nbecomes a journalist, he probably has to write\r\nfor a newspaper whose politics he dislikes; this\r\nkills his pride in work and his sense of independence.\r\nMost medical men find it very hard\r\nto succeed without humbug, by which whatever\r\nscientific conscience they may have had is destroyed.\r\nPoliticians are obliged, not only to\r\nswallow the party program but to pretend\r\nto be saints, in order to conciliate religious supporters;\r\nhardly any man can enter Parliament\r\nwithout hypocrisy. In no profession is there\r\nany respect for the native pride without which\r\na man cannot remain whole; the world ruthlessly\r\ncrushes it out, because it implies independence,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_252\"\u003e252\u003c/span\u003e\r\nand men desire to enslave others\r\nmore than they desire to be free themselves.\r\nInward freedom is infinitely precious, and a society\r\nwhich will preserve it is immeasurably to\r\nbe desired.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe principle of growth in a man is not\r\ncrushed necessarily by preventing him from\r\ndoing some definite thing, but it is often crushed\r\nby persuading him to do something else. The\r\nthings that crush growth are those that produce\r\na sense of impotence in the directions in which\r\nthe vital impulse wishes to be effective. The\r\nworst things are those to which the will assents.\r\nOften, chiefly from failure of self-knowledge,\r\na man’s will is on a lower level than his impulse:\r\nhis impulse is towards some kind of creation,\r\nwhile his will is towards a conventional\r\ncareer, with a sufficient income and the respect\r\nof his contemporaries. The stereotyped illustration\r\nis the artist who produces shoddy work\r\nto please the public. But something of the artist’s\r\ndefiniteness of impulse exists in very\r\nmany men who are not artists. Because the\r\nimpulse is deep and dumb, because what is\r\ncalled common sense is often against it, because\r\na young man can only follow it if he is willing\r\nto set up his own obscure feelings against the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_253\"\u003e253\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwisdom and prudent maxims of elders and\r\nfriends, it happens in ninety-nine cases out of\r\na hundred that the creative impulse, out of\r\nwhich a free and vigorous life might have\r\nsprung, is checked and thwarted at the very\r\noutset: the young man consents to become a\r\ntool, not an independent workman; a mere\r\nmeans to the fulfilment of others, not the artificer\r\nof what his own nature feels to be good.\r\nIn the moment when he makes this act of consent\r\nsomething dies within him. He can never\r\nagain become a whole man, never again have\r\nthe undamaged self-respect, the upright pride,\r\nwhich might have kept him happy in his soul in\r\nspite of all outward troubles and difficulties—except,\r\nindeed, through conversion and a fundamental\r\nchange in his way of life.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOutward prohibitions, to which the will gives\r\nno assent, are far less harmful than the subtler\r\ninducements which seduce the will. A serious\r\ndisappointment in love may cause the most\r\npoignant pain, but to a vigorous man it will not\r\ndo the same inward damage as is done by marrying\r\nfor money. The achievement of this or\r\nthat special desire is not what is essential: what\r\nis essential is the direction, the \u003cem\u003ekind\u003c/em\u003e of effectiveness\r\nwhich is sought. When the fundamental\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_254\"\u003e254\u003c/span\u003e\r\nimpulse is opposed by will, it is made to feel\r\nhelpless: it has no longer enough hope to be\r\npowerful as a motive. Outward compulsion\r\ndoes not do the same damage unless it produces\r\nthe same sense of impotence; and it will not\r\nproduce the same sense of impotence if the impulse\r\nis strong and courageous. Some thwarting\r\nof special desires is unavoidable even in\r\nthe best imaginable community, since some\r\nmen’s desires, unchecked, lead to the oppression\r\nor destruction of others. In a good community\r\nNapoleon could not have been allowed\r\nthe profession of his choice, but he might have\r\nfound happiness as a pioneer in Western America.\r\nHe could not have found happiness as a\r\nCity clerk, and no tolerable organization of society\r\nwould compel him to become a City clerk.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe integration of an individual life requires\r\nthat it should embody whatever creative impulse\r\na man may possess, and that his education\r\nshould have been such as to elicit and fortify\r\nthis impulse. The integration of a community\r\nrequires that the different creative impulses of\r\ndifferent men and women should work together\r\ntowards some common life, some common purpose,\r\nnot necessarily conscious, in which all the\r\nmembers of the community find a help to their\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_255\"\u003e255\u003c/span\u003e\r\nindividual fulfilment. Most of the activities\r\nthat spring from vital impulses consist of two\r\nparts: one creative, which furthers one’s own\r\nlife and that of others with the same kind of\r\nimpulse or circumstances, and one possessive,\r\nwhich hinders the life of some group with a different\r\nkind of impulse or circumstances. For\r\nthis reason, much of what is in itself most vital\r\nmay nevertheless work against life, as, for example,\r\nseventeenth-century Puritanism did in\r\nEngland, or as nationalism does throughout\r\nEurope at the present day. Vitality easily\r\nleads to strife or oppression, and so to loss of\r\nvitality. War, at its outset, integrates the life\r\nof a nation, but it disintegrates the life of the\r\nworld, and in the long run the life of a nation\r\ntoo, when it is as severe as the present war.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe war has made it clear that it is impossible\r\nto produce a secure integration of the life\r\nof a single community while the relations between\r\ncivilized countries are governed by aggressiveness\r\nand suspicion. For this reason\r\nany really powerful movement of reform will\r\nhave to be international. A merely national\r\nmovement is sure to fail through fear of danger\r\nfrom without. Those who desire a better\r\nworld, or even a radical improvement in their\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_256\"\u003e256\u003c/span\u003e\r\nown country, will have to coöperate with those\r\nwho have similar desires in other countries, and\r\nto devote much of their energy to overcoming\r\nthat blind hostility which the war has intensified.\r\nIt is not in partial integrations, such as\r\npatriotism alone can produce, that any ultimate\r\nhope is to be found. The problem is, in national\r\nand international questions as in the individual\r\nlife, to keep what is creative in vital\r\nimpulses, and at the same time to turn into\r\nother channels the part which is at present destructive.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eMen’s impulses and desires may be divided\r\ninto those that are creative and those that are\r\npossessive. Some of our activities are directed\r\nto creating what would not otherwise exist, others\r\nare directed towards acquiring or retaining\r\nwhat exists already. The typical creative impulse\r\nis that of the artist; the typical possessive\r\nimpulse is that of property. The best life\r\nis that in which creative impulses play the largest\r\npart and possessive impulses the smallest.\r\nThe best institutions are those which produce\r\nthe greatest possible creativeness and the least\r\npossessiveness compatible with self-preservation.\r\nPossessiveness may be defensive or aggressive:\r\nin the criminal law it is defensive, and\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_257\"\u003e257\u003c/span\u003e\r\nin criminals it is aggressive. It may perhaps\r\nbe admitted that the criminal law is less abominable\r\nthan the criminal, and that defensive possessiveness\r\nis unavoidable so long as aggressive\r\npossessiveness exists. But not even the most\r\npurely defensive forms of possessiveness are\r\nin themselves admirable; indeed, as soon as\r\nthey are strong they become hostile to the creative\r\nimpulses. “Take no thought, saying,\r\nWhat shall we eat? or What shall we drink, or\r\nWherewithal shall we be clothed?” Whoever\r\nhas known a strong creative impulse has known\r\nthe value of this precept in its exact and literal\r\nsense: it is preoccupation with possessions,\r\nmore than anything else, that prevents men\r\nfrom living freely and nobly. The State and\r\nProperty are the great embodiments of possessiveness;\r\nit is for this reason that they are\r\nagainst life, and that they issue in war. Possession\r\nmeans taking or keeping some good\r\nthing which another is prevented from enjoying;\r\ncreation means putting into the world a\r\ngood thing which otherwise no one would be\r\nable to enjoy. Since the material goods of the\r\nworld must be divided among the population,\r\nand since some men are by nature brigands,\r\nthere must be defensive possession, which will\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_258\"\u003e258\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbe regulated, in a good community, by some\r\nprinciple of impersonal justice. But all this\r\nis only the preface to a good life or good political\r\ninstitutions, in which creation will altogether\r\noutweigh possession, and distributive\r\njustice will exist as an uninteresting matter of\r\ncourse.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe supreme principle, both in politics and\r\nin private life, should be \u003cem\u003eto promote all that is\r\ncreative, and so to diminish the impulses and\r\ndesires that center round possession\u003c/em\u003e. The\r\nState at present is very largely an embodiment\r\nof possessive impulses: internally, it protects\r\nthe rich against the poor; externally, it uses\r\nforce for the exploitation of inferior races, and\r\nfor competition with other States. Our whole\r\neconomic system is concerned exclusively with\r\npossession; yet the production of goods is a\r\nform of creation, and except in so far as it is\r\nirredeemably mechanical and monotonous, it\r\nmight afford a vehicle for creative impulses.\r\nA great deal might be achieved towards this\r\nend by forming the producers of a certain kind\r\nof commodity into an autonomous democracy,\r\nsubject to State control as regards the price of\r\ntheir commodity but not as to the manner of its\r\nproduction.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_259\"\u003e259\u003c/span\u003e\r\nEducation, marriage, and religion are essentially\r\ncreative, yet all three have been vitiated\r\nby the intrusion of possessive motives. Education\r\nis usually treated as a means of prolonging\r\nthe \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003estatus quo\u003c/i\u003e by instilling prejudices,\r\nrather than of creating free thought and a noble\r\noutlook by the example of generous feeling and\r\nthe stimulus of mental adventure. In marriage,\r\nlove, which is creative, is kept in chains\r\nby jealousy, which is possessive. Religion,\r\nwhich should set free the creative vision of the\r\nspirit, is usually more concerned to repress the\r\nlife of instinct and to combat the subversiveness\r\nof thought. In all these ways the fear that\r\ngrows out of precarious possession has replaced\r\nthe hope inspired by creative force. The wish\r\nto plunder others is recognized, in theory, to\r\nbe bad; but the fear of being plundered is little\r\nbetter. Yet these two motives between them\r\ndominate nine-tenths of politics and private life.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe creative impulses in different men are\r\nessentially harmonious, since what one man\r\ncreates cannot be a hindrance to what another\r\nis wishing to create. It is the possessive impulses\r\nthat involve conflict. Although, morally\r\nand politically, the creative and possessive impulses\r\nare opposites, yet psychologically either\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_260\"\u003e260\u003c/span\u003e\r\npasses easily into the other, according to the\r\naccidents of circumstance and opportunity.\r\nThe genesis of impulses and the causes which\r\nmake them change ought to be studied; education\r\nand social institutions ought to be made\r\nsuch as to strengthen the impulses which harmonize\r\nin different men, and to weaken those\r\nthat involve conflict. I have no doubt that what\r\nmight be accomplished in this way is almost unlimited.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is rather through impulse than through will\r\nthat individual lives and the life of the community\r\ncan derive the strength unity of a\r\nsingle direction. Will is of two kinds, of which\r\none is directed outward and the other inward.\r\nThe first, which is directed outward, is called\r\ninto play by external obstacles, either the opposition\r\nof others or the technical difficulties\r\nof an undertaking. This kind of will is an expression\r\nof strong impulse or desire, whenever\r\ninstant success is impossible; it exists in all\r\nwhose life is vigorous, and only decays when\r\ntheir vital force is enfeebled. It is necessary\r\nto success in any difficult enterprise, and without\r\nit great achievement is very rare. But the\r\nwill which is directed inward is only necessary\r\nin so far as there is an inner conflict of impulses\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_261\"\u003e261\u003c/span\u003e\r\nor desires; a perfectly harmonious nature\r\nwould have no occasion for inward will.\r\nSuch perfect harmony is of course a scarcely\r\nrealizable ideal: in all men impulses arise which\r\nare incompatible with their central purpose,\r\nand which must be checked if their life as a\r\nwhole is not to be a failure. But this will happen\r\nleast with those whose central impulses are\r\nstrongest; and it will happen less often in a society\r\nwhich aims at freedom than in a society\r\nlike ours, which is full of artificial incompatibilities\r\ncreated by antiquated institutions\r\nand a tyrannous public opinion. The power to\r\nexert inward will when the occasion arises must\r\nalways be needed by those who wish their lives\r\nto embody some central purpose, but with better\r\ninstitutions the occasions when inward will\r\nis necessary might be made fewer and less important.\r\nThis result is very much to be desired,\r\nbecause when will checks impulses which\r\nare only accidentally harmful, it diverts a force\r\nwhich might be spent on overcoming outward\r\nobstacles, and if the impulses checked are\r\nstrong and serious, it actually diminishes the\r\nvital force available. A life full of inhibitions\r\nis likely not to remain a very vigorous life but\r\nto become listless and without zest. Impulse\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_262\"\u003e262\u003c/span\u003e\r\ntends to die when it is constantly held in check,\r\nand if it does not die, it is apt to work underground,\r\nand issue in some form much worse\r\nthan that in which it has been checked. For\r\nthese reasons the necessity for using inward\r\nwill ought to be avoided as much as possible,\r\nand consistency of action ought to spring rather\r\nfrom consistency of impulse than from control\r\nof impulse by will.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe unifying of life ought not to demand the\r\nsuppression of the casual desires that make\r\namusement and play; on the contrary, everything\r\nought to be done to make it easy to combine\r\nthe main purposes of life with all kinds of\r\npleasure that are not in their nature harmful.\r\nSuch things as habitual drunkenness, drugs,\r\ncruel sports, or pleasure in inflicting pain are\r\nessentially harmful, but most of the amusements\r\nthat civilized men naturally enjoy are either not\r\nharmful at all or only accidentally harmful\r\nthrough some effect which might be avoided in\r\na better society. What is needed is, not asceticism\r\nor a drab Puritanism, but capacity for\r\nstrong impulses and desires directed towards\r\nlarge creative ends. When such impulses and\r\ndesires are vigorous, they bring with them, of\r\nthemselves, what is needed to make a good life.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_263\"\u003e263\u003c/span\u003e\r\nBut although amusement and adventure\r\nought to have their share, it is impossible to\r\ncreate a good life if they are what is mainly\r\ndesired. Subjectivism, the habit of directing\r\nthought and desire to our own states of mind\r\nrather than to something objective, inevitably\r\nmakes life fragmentary and unprogressive.\r\nThe man to whom amusement is the end of life\r\ntends to lose interest gradually in the things\r\nout of which he has been in the habit of obtaining\r\namusement, since he does not value these\r\nthings on their own account, but on account of\r\nthe feelings which they arouse in him. When\r\nthey are no longer amusing, boredom drives\r\nhim to seek some new stimulus, which fails him\r\nin its turn. Amusement consists in a series of\r\nmoments without any essential continuity; a\r\npurpose which unifies life is one which requires\r\nsome prolonged activity, and is like building a\r\nmonument rather than a child’s castle in the\r\nsand.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eSubjectivism has other forms beside the\r\nmere pursuit of amusement. Many men, when\r\nthey are in love, are more interested in their\r\nown emotion than in the object of their love;\r\nsuch love does not lead to any essential union,\r\nbut leaves fundamental separateness undiminished.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_264\"\u003e264\u003c/span\u003e\r\nAs soon as the emotion grows less vivid\r\nthe experience has served its purpose, and\r\nthere seems no motive for prolonging it. In\r\nanother way, the same evil of subjectivism was\r\nfostered by Protestant religion and morality,\r\nsince they directed attention to sin and the state\r\nof the soul rather than to the outer world and\r\nour relations with it. None of these forms of\r\nsubjectivism can prevent a man’s life from\r\nbeing fragmentary and isolated. Only a life\r\nwhich springs out of dominant impulses directed\r\nto objective ends can be a satisfactory whole,\r\nor be intimately united with the lives of others.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe pursuit of pleasure and the pursuit of\r\nvirtue alike suffer from subjectivism: Epicureanism\r\nand Stoicism are infected with the\r\nsame taint. Marcus Aurelius, enacting good\r\nlaws in order that he might be virtuous, is not\r\nan attractive figure. Subjectivism is a natural\r\noutcome of a life in which there is much more\r\nthought than action: while outer things are being\r\nremembered or desired, not actually experienced,\r\nthey seem to become mere ideas. What\r\nthey are in themselves becomes less interesting\r\nto us than the effects which they produce in our\r\nown minds. Such a result tends to be brought\r\nabout by increasing civilization, because increasing\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_265\"\u003e265\u003c/span\u003e\r\ncivilization continually diminishes the\r\nneed for vivid action and enhances the opportunities\r\nfor thought. But thought will not have\r\nthis bad result if it is active thought, directed\r\ntowards achieving some purpose; it is only passive\r\nthought that leads to subjectivism. What\r\nis needed is to keep thought in intimate union\r\nwith impulses and desires, making it always itself\r\nan activity with an objective purpose.\r\nOtherwise, thought and impulse become enemies,\r\nto the great detriment of both.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn order to make the lives of average men\r\nand women less fragmentary and separate, and\r\nto give greater opportunity for carrying out\r\ncreative impulses, it is not enough to know the\r\ngoal we wish to reach, or to proclaim the excellence\r\nof what we desire to achieve. It is\r\nnecessary to understand the effect of institutions\r\nand beliefs upon the life of impulse, and\r\nto discover ways of improving this effect by a\r\nchange in institutions. And when this intellectual\r\nwork has been done, our thought will still\r\nremain barren unless we can bring it into relation\r\nwith some powerful political force. The\r\nonly powerful political force from which any\r\nhelp is to be expected in bringing about\r\nsuch changes as seem needed is Labor. The\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_266\"\u003e266\u003c/span\u003e\r\nchanges required are very largely such as Labor\r\nmay be expected to welcome, especially during\r\nthe time of hardship after the war. When\r\nthe war is over, labor discontent is sure to be\r\nvery prevalent throughout Europe, and to constitute\r\na political force by means of which a\r\ngreat and sweeping reconstruction may be effected.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe civilized world has need of fundamental\r\nchange if it is to be saved from decay—change\r\nboth in its economic structure and in its philosophy\r\nof life. Those of us who feel the need\r\nof change must not sit still in dull despair: we\r\ncan, if we choose, profoundly influence the future.\r\nWe can discover and preach the kind of\r\nchange that is required—the kind that preserves\r\nwhat is positive in the vital beliefs of\r\nour time, and, by eliminating what is negative\r\nand inessential, produces a synthesis to which\r\nall that is not purely reactionary can give allegiance.\r\nAs soon as it has become clear what\r\n\u003cem\u003ekind\u003c/em\u003e of change is required, it will be possible\r\nto work out its parts in more detail. But until\r\nthe war is ended there is little use in detail,\r\nsince we do not know what kind of world the\r\nwar will leave. The only thing that seems indubitable\r\nis that much new thought will be required\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_267\"\u003e267\u003c/span\u003e\r\nin the new world produced by the war.\r\nTraditional views will give little help. It is\r\nclear that men’s most important actions are not\r\nguided by the sort of motives that are emphasized\r\nin traditional political philosophies. The\r\nimpulses by which the war has been produced\r\nand sustained come out of a deeper region than\r\nthat of most political argument. And the opposition\r\nto the war on the part of those few\r\nwho have opposed it comes from the same deep\r\nregion. A political theory, if it is to hold in\r\ntimes of stress, must take account of the impulses\r\nthat underlie explicit thought: it must\r\nappeal to them, and it must discover how to\r\nmake them fruitful rather than destructive.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eEconomic systems have a great influence in\r\npromoting or destroying life. Except slavery,\r\nthe present industrial system is the most destructive\r\nof life that has ever existed. Machinery\r\nand large-scale production are ineradicable,\r\nand must survive in any better system which\r\nis to replace the one under which we live. Industrial\r\nfederal democracy is probably the best\r\ndirection for reform to take.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePhilosophies of life, when they are widely believed,\r\nalso have a very great influence on the\r\nvitality of a community. The most widely accepted\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_268\"\u003e268\u003c/span\u003e\r\nphilosophy of life at present is that what\r\nmatters most to a man’s happiness is his income.\r\nThis philosophy, apart from other demerits,\r\nis harmful because it leads men to aim\r\nat a result rather than an activity, an enjoyment\r\nof material goods in which men are not\r\ndifferentiated, rather than a creative impulse\r\nwhich embodies each man’s individuality.\r\nMore refined philosophies, such as are instilled\r\nby higher education, are too apt to fix attention\r\non the past rather than the future, and on correct\r\nbehavior rather than effective action. It\r\nis not in such philosophies that men will find\r\nthe energy to bear lightly the weight of tradition\r\nand of ever-accumulating knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe world has need of a philosophy, or a religion,\r\nwhich will promote life. But in order to\r\npromote life it is necessary to value something\r\nother than mere life. Life devoted only to life\r\nis animal without any real human value, incapable\r\nof preserving men permanently from\r\nweariness and the feeling that all is vanity. If\r\nlife is to be fully human it must serve some end\r\nwhich seems, in some sense, outside human life,\r\nsome end which is impersonal and above mankind,\r\nsuch as God or truth or beauty. Those\r\nwho best promote life do not have life for their\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_269\"\u003e269\u003c/span\u003e\r\npurpose. They aim rather at what seems like\r\na gradual incarnation, a bringing into our human\r\nexistence of something eternal, something\r\nthat appears to imagination to live in a heaven\r\nremote from strife and failure and the devouring\r\njaws of Time. Contact with this eternal\r\nworld—even if it be only a world of our imagining—brings\r\na strength and a fundamental peace\r\nwhich cannot be wholly destroyed by the struggles\r\nand apparent failures of our temporal life.\r\nIt is this happy contemplation of what is eternal\r\nthat Spinoza calls the intellectual love of\r\nGod. To those who have once known it, it is\r\nthe key of wisdom.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat we have to do practically is different\r\nfor each one of us, according to our capacities\r\nand opportunities. But if we have the life of\r\nthe spirit within us, what we must do and what\r\nwe must avoid will become apparent to us.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBy contact with what is eternal, by devoting\r\nour life to bringing something of the Divine\r\ninto this troubled world, we can make our own\r\nlives creative even now, even in the midst of the\r\ncruelty and strife and hatred that surround us\r\non every hand. To make the individual life creative\r\nis far harder in a community based on\r\npossession than it would be in such a community\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_270\"\u003e270\u003c/span\u003e\r\nas human effort may be able to build up in\r\nthe future. Those who are to begin the regeneration\r\nof the world must face loneliness, opposition,\r\npoverty, obloquy. They must be able\r\nto live by truth and love, with a rational unconquerable\r\nhope; they must be honest and wise,\r\nfearless, and guided by a consistent purpose.\r\nA body of men and women so inspired will conquer—first\r\nthe difficulties and perplexities of\r\ntheir individual lives, then, in time, though perhaps\r\nonly in a long time, the outer world. Wisdom\r\nand hope are what the world needs; and\r\nthough it fights against them, it gives its respect\r\nto them in the end.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhen the Goths sacked Rome, St. Augustine\r\nwrote the “City of God,” putting a spiritual\r\nhope in place of the material reality that had\r\nbeen destroyed. Throughout the centuries that\r\nfollowed St. Augustine’s hope lived and gave\r\nlife, while Rome sank to a village of hovels.\r\nFor us, too, it is necessary to create a new hope,\r\nto build up by our thought a better world than\r\nthe one which is hurling itself into ruin. Because\r\nthe times are bad, more is required of us\r\nthan would be required in normal times. Only\r\na supreme fire of thought and spirit can save\r\nfuture generations from the death that has befallen\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_271\"\u003e271\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe generation which we knew and loved.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt has been my good fortune to come in contact\r\nas a teacher with young men of many different\r\nnations—young men in whom hope was\r\nalive, in whom the creative energy existed that\r\nwould have realized in the world some part at\r\nleast of the imagined beauty by which they\r\nlived. They have been swept into the war, some\r\non one side, some on the other. Some are still\r\nfighting, some are maimed for life, some are\r\ndead; of those who survive it is to be feared that\r\nmany will have lost the life of the spirit, that\r\nhope will have died, that energy will be spent,\r\nand that the years to come will be only a weary\r\njourney towards the grave. Of all this tragedy,\r\nnot a few of those who teach seem to have no\r\nfeeling: with ruthless logic, they prove that\r\nthese young men have been sacrificed unavoidably\r\nfor some coldly abstract end; undisturbed\r\nthemselves, they lapse quickly into comfort\r\nafter any momentary assault of feeling. In\r\nsuch men the life of the spirit is dead. If it\r\nwere living, it would go out to meet the spirit\r\nin the young, with a love as poignant as the love\r\nof father or mother. It would be unaware of\r\nthe bounds of self; their tragedy would be its\r\nown. Something would cry out: “No, this is\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\" id=\"Page_272\"\u003e272\u003c/span\u003e\r\nnot right; this is not good; this is not a holy\r\ncause, in which the brightness of youth is destroyed\r\nand dimmed. It is we, the old, who\r\nhave sinned; we have sent these young men to\r\nthe battlefield for our evil passions, our spiritual\r\ndeath, our failure to live generously out of the\r\nwarmth of the heart and out of the living vision\r\nof the spirit. Let us come out of this death,\r\nfor it is we who are dead, not the young men\r\nwho have died through our fear of life. Their\r\nvery ghosts have more life than we: they hold\r\nus up for ever to the shame and obloquy of all\r\nthe ages to come. Out of their ghosts must\r\ncome life, and it is we whom they must vivify.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"p2 center smaller\"\u003eTHE END\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"footnotes\"\u003e\r\n\u003ch2 class=\"nobreak p1\" id=\"FOOTNOTES\"\u003eFOOTNOTES\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn1\"\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#FNanchor_1\" id=\"Footnote_1\"\u003e1\u003c/a\u003e On this subject compare Bernard Hart’s \u003ccite class=\"normal\"\u003e“Psychology of\r\nInsanity\u003c/cite\u003e” (Cambridge University Press, 1914), chap. v, especially\r\npp. 62–5.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn1\"\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#FNanchor_2\" id=\"Footnote_2\"\u003e2\u003c/a\u003e This was written before Christianity had become punishable\r\nby hard labor, penal servitude, or even death, under the\r\nMilitary Service Act (No. 2). [Note added in 1916.]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn1\"\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#FNanchor_3\" id=\"Footnote_3\"\u003e3\u003c/a\u003e The blasphemy prosecutions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn1\"\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#FNanchor_4\" id=\"Footnote_4\"\u003e4\u003c/a\u003e The syndicalist prosecutions. [The punishment of conscientious\r\nobjectors must now be added, 1916.]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn1\"\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#FNanchor_5\" id=\"Footnote_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e In a democratic country it is the majority who must after\r\nall rule, and the minority will be obliged to submit with the\r\nbest grace possible (\u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003eWestminster Gazette\u003c/i\u003e on Conscription,\r\nDecember 29, 1915).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn1\"\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#FNanchor_6\" id=\"Footnote_6\"\u003e6\u003c/a\u003e Some very strong remarks on the conduct of the “white\r\nfeather” women were made by Mr. Reginald Kemp, the Deputy\r\nCoroner for West Middlesex, at an inquest at Ealing on Saturday\r\non Richard Charles Roberts, aged thirty-four, a taxicab\r\ndriver, of Shepherd’s Bush, who committed suicide in consequence\r\nof worry caused by his rejection from the Army and\r\nthe taunts of women and other amateur recruiters.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nIt was stated that he tried to join the Army in October,\r\nbut was rejected on account of a weak heart. That alone, said\r\nhis widow, had depressed him, and he had been worried because\r\nhe thought he would lose his license owing to the state\r\nof his heart. He had also been troubled by the dangerous\r\nillness of a child.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nA soldier relative said that the deceased’s life had been made\r\n“a perfect misery” by women who taunted him and called him\r\na coward because he did not join the Army. A few days ago\r\ntwo women in Maida Vale insulted him “something shocking.”\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe Coroner, speaking with some warmth, said the conduct\r\nof such women was abominable. It was scandalous that women\r\nwho knew nothing of individual circumstances should be\r\nallowed to go about making unbearable the lives of men who\r\nhad tried to do their duty. It was a pity they had nothing\r\nbetter to do. Here was a man who perhaps had been driven\r\nto death by a pack of silly women. He hoped something would\r\nsoon be done to put a stop to such conduct (\u003ccite\u003eDaily News\u003c/cite\u003e,\r\nJuly 26, 1915).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn1\"\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#FNanchor_7\" id=\"Footnote_7\"\u003e7\u003c/a\u003e By England in South Africa, America in the Philippines,\r\nFrance in Morocco, Italy in Tripoli, Germany in Southwest\r\nAfrica, Russia in Persia and Manchuria, Japan in Manchuria.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn1\"\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#FNanchor_8\" id=\"Footnote_8\"\u003e8\u003c/a\u003e This was written in 1915.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn1\"\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#FNanchor_9\" id=\"Footnote_9\"\u003e9\u003c/a\u003e This would be as true under a syndicalist régime as it is\r\nat present.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn2\"\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#FNanchor_10\" id=\"Footnote_10\"\u003e10\u003c/a\u003e These changes, which are to be desired on their own account,\r\nnot only in order to prevent war, will be discussed in\r\nlater lectures.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn2\"\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#FNanchor_11\" id=\"Footnote_11\"\u003e11\u003c/a\u003e What is said on this subject in the present lecture is only\r\npreliminary, since the subsequent lectures all deal with some\r\naspect of the same problem.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn2\"\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#FNanchor_12\" id=\"Footnote_12\"\u003e12\u003c/a\u003e Except by that small minority who are capable of artistic\r\nenjoyment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn2\"\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#FNanchor_13\" id=\"Footnote_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e Booth’s “\u003ccite class=\"normal\"\u003eLife and Labour of the People\u003c/cite\u003e,” vol. iii.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn2\"\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#FNanchor_14\" id=\"Footnote_14\"\u003e14\u003c/a\u003e As regards the education of young children, Madame\r\nMontessori’s methods seem to me full of wisdom.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn2\"\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#FNanchor_15\" id=\"Footnote_15\"\u003e15\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"smcap\"\u003eThe Teaching of Patriotism. His Majesty’s\r\nApproval.\u003c/span\u003e\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe King has been graciously pleased to accept a copy of the\r\nlittle book containing suggestions to local education authorities\r\nand teachers in Wales as to the teaching of patriotism which\r\nhas just been issued by the Welsh Department of the Board\r\nof Education in connection with the observance of the National\r\nAnniversary of St. David’s Day. His Private Secretary\r\n(Lord Stamfordham), in writing to Mr. Alfred T. Davies, the\r\nPermanent Secretary of the Welsh Department, says that his\r\nMajesty is much pleased with the contents of the book, and\r\ntrusts that the principles inculcated in it will bear good fruit\r\nin the lives and characters of the coming generation.—\u003ccite\u003eMorning\r\nPost\u003c/cite\u003e, January 29, 1916.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn2\"\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#FNanchor_16\" id=\"Footnote_16\"\u003e16\u003c/a\u003e What Madame Montessori has achieved in the way of\r\nminimizing obedience and discipline with advantage to education\r\nis almost miraculous.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn2\"\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#FNanchor_17\" id=\"Footnote_17\"\u003e17\u003c/a\u003e There was a provision for suits \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003ein forma pauperis\u003c/i\u003e, but for\r\nvarious reasons this provision was nearly useless; a new and\r\nsomewhat better provision has recently been made, but is still\r\nvery far from satisfactory.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn2\"\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#FNanchor_18\" id=\"Footnote_18\"\u003e18\u003c/a\u003e The following letter (\u003ccite\u003eNew Statesman\u003c/cite\u003e, December 4, 1915)\r\nillustrates the nature of his activities:—\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003ch3\u003e \u003cspan class=\"smcap\"\u003eDivorce and War.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eTo the Editor of the\u003c/i\u003e “New Statesman.”\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\n\u003cspan class=\"smcap\"\u003eSir\u003c/span\u003e,—The following episodes may be of interest to your\r\nreaders. Under the new facilities for divorce offered to the\r\nLondon poor, a poor woman recently obtained a decree \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003enisi\u003c/i\u003e for\r\ndivorce against her husband, who had often covered her body\r\nwith bruises, infected her with a dangerous disease, and committed\r\nbigamy. By this bigamous marriage the husband had\r\nten illegitimate children. In order to prevent this decree being\r\nmade absolute, the Treasury spent at least £200 of the taxes\r\nin briefing a leading counsel and an eminent junior counsel\r\nand in bringing about ten witnesses from a city a hundred\r\nmiles away to prove that this woman had committed casual\r\nacts of adultery in 1895 and 1898. The net result is that this\r\nwoman will probably be forced by destitution into further\r\nadultery, and that the husband will be able to treat his mistress\r\nexactly as he treated his wife, with impunity, so far as disease\r\nis concerned. In nearly every other civilized country the\r\nmarriage would have been dissolved, the children could have\r\nbeen legitimated by subsequent marriage, and the lawyers\r\nemployed by the Treasury would not have earned the large fees\r\nthey did from the community for an achievement which seems\r\nto most other lawyers thoroughly anti-social in its effects. If\r\nany lawyers really feel that society is benefited by this sort of\r\nlitigation, why cannot they give their services for nothing,\r\nlike the lawyers who assisted the wife? If we are to practise\r\neconomy in war-time, why cannot the King’s Proctor be satisfied\r\nwith a junior counsel only? The fact remains that many\r\npersons situated like the husband and wife in question prefer\r\nto avoid having illegitimate children, and the birth-rate accordingly\r\nsuffers.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe other episode is this. A divorce was obtained by Mr.\r\nA. against Mrs. A. and Mr. B. Mr. B. was married and Mrs.\r\nB., on hearing of the divorce proceedings, obtained a decree\r\nnisi against Mr. B. Mr. B. is at any moment liable to be\r\ncalled to the Front, but Mrs. B. has for some months declined\r\nto make the decree \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003enisi\u003c/i\u003e absolute, and this prevents him marrying\r\nMrs. A., as he feels in honor bound to do. Yet the law\r\nallows any petitioner, male or female, to obtain a decree \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003enisi\u003c/i\u003e\r\nand to refrain from making it absolute for motives which\r\nare probably discreditable. The Divorce Law Commissioners\r\nstrongly condemned this state of things, and the hardship in\r\nquestion is immensely aggravated in war-time, just as the war\r\nhas given rise to many cases of bigamy owing to the chivalrous\r\ndesire of our soldiers to obtain for the \u003ci lang=\"la\"\u003ede facto\u003c/i\u003e wife and family\r\nthe separation allowance of the State. The legal wife is often\r\nunited by similar ties to another man. I commend these facts\r\nto consideration in your columns, having regard to your frequent\r\ncomplaints of a falling birth-rate. The iniquity of our\r\nmarriage laws is an important contributory cause to the fall\r\nin question.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"sigright\"\u003e\r\n\u003cspan class=\"l4\"\u003eYours, etc.,\u003c/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003cspan class=\"smcap\"\u003eE. S. P. Haynes\u003c/span\u003e.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"p0 b1\"\u003e\r\n\u003ci\u003eNovember 29th.\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn2\"\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#FNanchor_19\" id=\"Footnote_19\"\u003e19\u003c/a\u003e Some interesting facts were given by Mr. Sidney Webb in\r\ntwo letters to \u003ccite\u003eThe Times\u003c/cite\u003e, October 11 and 16, 1906; there is also\r\na Fabian tract on the subject: “The Decline in the Birth-Rate,”\r\nby Sidney Webb (No. 131). Some further information\r\nmay be found in “\u003ccite class=\"normal\"\u003eThe Declining Birth-Rate: Its National and\r\nInternational Significance\u003c/cite\u003e,” by A. Newsholme, M.D., M.R.C.S.\r\n(Cassell, 1911).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn2\"\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#FNanchor_20\" id=\"Footnote_20\"\u003e20\u003c/a\u003e The fall in the death-rate, and especially in the infant\r\nmortality, which has occurred concurrently with the fall in\r\nthe birth-rate, has hitherto been sufficiently great to allow the\r\npopulation of Great Britain to go on increasing. But there\r\nare obvious limits to the fall of the death-rate, whereas the\r\nbirth-rate might easily fall to a point which would make an\r\nactual diminution of numbers unavoidable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"fn2\"\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#FNanchor_21\" id=\"Footnote_21\"\u003e21\u003c/a\u003e I should add artists but for the fact that most modern\r\nartists seem to find much greater difficulty in creation than\r\nmen of science usually find.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"chapter\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"transnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003ch2 class=\"nobreak p1\" id=\"Transcribers_Notes\"\u003eTranscriber’s Notes\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePunctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant\r\npreference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eSimple typographical errors were corrected.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAmbiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained; occurrences\r\nof inconsistent hyphenation have not been changed.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eDuplicate hemi-title removed just before first chapter.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003c/article\u003e"}],"SectionSequence":["Back Link","Work Title","Deck","Author","Period","Era","Composition","Date Note","Region","Terra Avita","Terra Avita Region","Modern Country","Original Title","Language","Primary Discipline","Secondary Discipline","Tradition","Full Versions","Core Thesis","Classification","Arguments","Influence","Significance","Evidence Note","Full Text"],"Counts":{"ContextCards":3,"GeoCards":4,"DisciplineCards":2,"Links":11,"Sections":25,"Styles":3,"Scripts":1}}