instincts preponderate as far as possible over the selfish instincts;
social feelings over personal feelings. This way of viewing the subject
is peculiar to the new philosophy, for no other system has included
the more recent additions to the theory of human nature, of which
Catholicism gave so imperfect a representation.
It is one of the first principles of Biology that organic life always
preponderates over animal life. By this principle the Sociologist
explains the superior strength of the self-regarding instincts,
since these are all connected more or less closely with the instinct
of self-preservation. But although there is no evading this fact,
Sociology shows that it is compatible with the existence of benevolent
affections, affections which Catholicism had asserted to be altogether
alien to our nature, and to be entirely dependent on superhuman Grace
derived from a sphere beyond the reach of Law. The great problem,
then, is to raise social feeling by artificial effort to the position
which, in the natural condition, is held by selfish feeling. The
solution is to be found in another biological principle, namely,
that functions and organs are developed by constant exercise, and
atrophied by prolonged inaction. Now the effect of the Social state is,
that while our sympathetic instincts are constantly stimulated, the
selfish propensities are restricted; since, if free play were given
to them, human intercourse would very shortly become impossible. Thus
it compensates to some extent the natural weakness of the Sympathies
that they are capable of almost indefinite extension, while Self-love
meets inevitably with a more or less efficient check. Both these
tendencies naturally increase with the progress of Humanity, and their
increase is the best measure of the degree of perfection that we have
attained. Their growth, though spontaneous, may be materially hastened
by organized intervention, both of individuals and of society, the
object being to increase all favourable influences and diminish the
unfavourable. This is the object of the art of Morals. Like every other
art, it is restricted within certain limits. But in this case the
limits are less narrow, because the phenomena, being more complex, are
also more modifiable.
Positive morality differs therefore from that of theological as well
as of metaphysical systems. Its primary principle is the preponderance
of Social Sympathy. Full and free expansion of the benevolent emotions
is made the first condition of individual and social well-being, since
these emotions are at once the sweetest to experience, and are the
only feelings which can find expression simultaneously in all. The
doctrine is as deep and pure as it is simple and true. It is eminently
characteristic of a philosophy which, by virtue of its attribute of
reality, subordinates all scientific conceptions to the social point
of view, as the sole point from which they can be co-ordinated into
a whole. The intuitive methods of metaphysics could never advance
with any consistency beyond the sphere of the individual. Theology,
especially Christian theology, could only rise to social conceptions by
an indirect process, forced upon it, not by its principles, but by its
practical functions. Intrinsically, its spirit was altogether personal;
the highest object placed before each individual was the attainment
of his own salvation, and all human affections were made subordinate
to the love of God. It is true that the first training of our higher
feelings is due to theological systems; but their moral value depended
mainly on the wisdom of the priesthood. They compensated the defects of
their doctrine, and at that time no better doctrine was available, by
taking advantage of the antagonism which naturally presented itself
between the interests of the imaginary and those of the real world.
The moral value of Positivism on the contrary, is inherent in its
doctrine, and can be largely developed, independently of any spiritual
discipline, though not so far as to dispense with the necessity for
such discipline. Thus, while Morality as a science is made far more
consistent by being placed in its true connexion with the rest of our
knowledge, the sphere of natural morality is widened by bringing human
life, individually and collectively, under the direct and continuous
influence of Social Feeling.
[Intermediate between
self-love and universal
benevolence are the domestic
affections: filial,
fraternal, conjugal,
paternal]
I have stated that Positive morality is brought into a coherent and
systematic form by its principle of universal love. This principle must
now be examined first in its application to the separate aspects of the
subject, and subsequently as the means by which the various parts may
be co-ordinated.
There are three successive states of morality answering to the three
principal stages of human life; the personal, the domestic, and the
social stage. The succession represents the gradual training of the
sympathetic principle; it is drawn out step by step by a series
of affections which, as it diminishes in intensity, increases in
dignity. This series forms our best resource in attempting as far
as possible to reach the normal state; subordination of self-love
to social feeling. These are the two extremes in the scale of human
affections; but between them there is an intermediate degree, namely,
domestic attachment, and it is on this that the solution of the
great moral problem depends. The love of his family leads Man out of
his original state of Self-love and enables him to attain finally a
sufficient measure of Social love. Every attempt on the part of the
moral educator to call this last into immediate action, regardless
of the intermediate stage, is to be condemned as utterly chimerical
and profoundly injurious. Such attempts are regarded in the present
day with far too favourable an eye. Far from being a sign of social
progress, they would, if successful, be an immense step backwards;
since the feeling which inspires them is one of perverted admiration
for antiquity.
Since the importance of domestic life is so great as a transition from
selfish to social feeling, a systematic view of its relations will be
the best mode of explaining the spirit of Positive morality, which is
in every respect based upon the order found in nature.
The first germ of social feeling is seen in the affection of the
child for its parents. Filial love is the starting-point of our moral
education: from it springs the instinct of Continuity, and consequently
of reverence for our ancestors. It is the first tie by which the new
being feels himself bound to the whole past history of Man. Brotherly
love comes next, implanting the instinct of Solidarity, that is to say
of union with our contemporaries; and thus we have already a sort of
outline of social existence. With maturity new phases of feeling are
developed. Relationships are formed of an entirely voluntary nature;
which have therefore a still more social character than the involuntary
ties of earlier years. This second stage in moral education begins
with conjugal affection, the most important of all, in which perfect
fullness of devotion is secured by the reciprocity and indissolubility
of the bond. It is the highest type of all sympathetic instincts,
and has appropriated to itself in a special sense the name of Love.
From this most perfect of unions proceeds the last in the series of
domestic sympathies, parental love. It completes the training by which
Nature prepares us for universal sympathy: for it teaches us to care
for our successors; and thus it binds us to the Future, as filial love
had bound us to the Past.
I placed the voluntary class of domestic sympathies after the
involuntary, because it was the natural order of individual
development, and it thus bore out my statement of the necessity of
family life as an intermediate stage between personal and social life.
But in treating more directly of the theory of the Family as the
constituent element of the body politic, the inverse order should be
followed. In that case conjugal attachment would come first, as being
the feeling through which the family comes into existence as a new
social unit, which in many cases consists simply of the original pair.
Domestic sympathy, when once formed by marriage, is perpetuated first
by parental then by filial affection; it may afterwards be developed
by the tie of brotherhood, the only relation by which different
families can be brought into direct contact. The order followed here
is that of decrease in intensity, and increase in extension. The
feeling of fraternity, which I place last, because it is usually least
powerful, will be seen to be of primary importance when regarded as
the transition from domestic to social affections; it is, indeed, the
natural type to which all social sympathies conform. But there is yet
another intermediate relation, without which this brief exposition of
the theory of the family would be incomplete; I mean the relation of
household servitude, which may be called indifferently domestic or
social. It is a relation which at the present time is not properly
appreciated on account of our dislike to all subjection; and yet the
word _domestic_ is enough to remind us that in every normal state
of Humanity, it supplies what would otherwise be a want in household
relations. Its value lies in completing the education of the social
instinct, by a special apprenticeship in obedience and command, both
being subordinated to the universal principle of mutual sympathy.
The object of the preceding remarks was to show the efficacy of the
Positive method in moral questions by applying it to the most important
of all moral theories, the theory of the Family. For more detailed
proof, I must refer to my treatise on _Positive Polity_, to which
this work is introductory. I would call attention, however, to the
beneficial influence of Positivism on personal morality. Actions which
hitherto had always been referred even by Catholic philosophers to
personal interests, are now brought under the great principle of Love
on which the whole Positive doctrine is based.
[Personal virtues placed
upon a social basis]
Feelings are only to be developed by constant exercise; and exercise is
most necessary when the intrinsic energy of the feeling is least. It
is therefore quite contrary to the true spirit of moral education to
degrade duty in questions of personal morality to a mere calculation
of self-interest. Of course, in this elementary part of Ethics, it
is easier to estimate the consequences of actions, and to show the
personal utility of the rules enjoined. But this method of procedure
inevitably stimulates the self-regarding propensities, which are
already too preponderant, and the exercise of which ought as far as
possible to be discouraged. Besides, it often results in practical
failure. To leave the decision of such questions to the judgment of the
individual, is to give a formal sanction to all the natural difference
in men’s inclinations. When the only motive urged is consideration for
personal consequences, every one feels himself to be the best judge
of these, and modifies the rule at his pleasure. Positivism, guided
by a truer estimate of the facts, entirely remodels this elementary
part of Ethics. Its appeal is to social feeling, and not to personal,
since the actions in question are of a kind in which the individual is
far from being the only person interested. For example, such virtues
as temperance and chastity are inculcated by the Positivist on other
grounds than those of their personal advantages. He will not of course
be blind to their individual value; but this is an aspect on which
he will not dwell too much, for fear of concentrating attention on
self-interest. At all events, he will never make it the basis of his
precepts, but will invariably rest them upon their social value.
There are cases in which men are preserved by an unusually strong
constitution from the injurious effects of intemperance or libertinage;
but such men are bound to sobriety and continence as vigorously as the
rest, because without these virtues they cannot perform their social
duties rightly. Even in the commonest of personal virtues, cleanliness,
this alteration in the point of view may be made with advantage. A
simple sanitary regulation is thus ennobled by knowing that the object
of it is to make each one of us more fit for the service of others.
In this way and in no other, can moral education assume its true
character at the very outset. We shall become habituated to the feeling
of subordination to Humanity, even in our smallest actions. It is in
these that we should be trained to gain the mastery over the lower
propensities; and the more so that, in these simple cases, it is less
difficult to appreciate their consequences.
The influence of Positivism on personal morality is in itself a proof
of its superiority to other systems. Its superiority in domestic
morality we have already seen, and yet this was the best aspect of
Catholicism, forming indeed the principal basis of its admirable moral
code. On social morality strictly so called, I need not dwell at
length. Here the value of the new philosophy will be more direct and
obvious, the fact of its standing at the social point of view being
the very feature which distinguishes it from all other systems. In
defining the mutual duties arising from the various relations of life,
or again in giving solidity and extension to the instinct of our common
fraternity, neither theological nor metaphysical morality can bear
comparison with Positivism. Its precepts are adapted without difficulty
to the special requirements of each case, because they are ever in
harmony with the general laws of society and of human nature. But on
these obvious characteristics of Positivism I need not further enlarge,
as I shall have other occasions for referring to them.
After this brief exposition of Positive morality I must allude with
equal brevity to the means by which it will be established and applied.
These are of two kinds. The first lay down the foundations of moral
training for each individual: they furnish principles, and they
regulate feelings. The second carry out the work begun, and ensure the
application of the principles inculcated to practical life. Both these
functions are in the first instance performed spontaneously, under the
influence of the doctrine and of the sympathies evoked by it. But for
their adequate performance a spiritual power specially devoted to the
purpose is necessary.
[Moral education consists
partly of scientific
demonstration of ethical
truth, but still more of
culture of the highest
sympathies]
The moral education of the Positivist is based both upon Reason and on
Feeling, the latter having always the preponderance, in accordance
with the primary principle of the system.
The result of the rational basis is to bring moral precepts to the test
of rigorous demonstration, and to secure them against all danger from
discussion, by showing that they rest upon the laws of our individual
and social nature. By knowing these laws, we are enabled to form a
judgment of the influence of each affection, thought, action, or habit,
be that influence direct or indirect, special or general, in private
life or in public. Convictions based upon such knowledge will be as
deep as any that are formed in the present day from the strictest
scientific evidence, with the excess of intensity due to their higher
importance and their close connexion with our noblest feelings. Nor
will such convictions be limited to those who are able to appreciate
the logical value of the arguments. We see constantly in other
departments of Positive science that men will adopt notions upon trust,
and carry them out with the same zeal and confidence, as if they were
thoroughly acquainted with all the grounds for their belief. All that
is necessary is, that they should feel satisfied that their confidence
is well bestowed, the fact being, in spite of all that is said of the
independence of modern thought, that it is often given too readily.
The most willing assent is yielded every day to the rules which
mathematicians, astronomers, physicists, chemists, or biologists, have
laid down in their respective arts, even in cases where the greatest
interests are at stake. And similar assent will certainly be accorded
to moral rules when they, like the rest, shall be acknowledged to be
susceptible of scientific proof.
But while using the force of demonstration to an extent hitherto
impossible, Positivists will take care not to exaggerate its
importance. Moral education, even in its more systematic parts, should
rest principally upon Feeling, as the mere statement of the great
human problem indicates. The study of moral questions, intellectually
speaking, is most valuable; but the effect it leaves is not directly
moral, since the analysis will refer, not to our own actions, but to
those of others; for all scientific investigations, to be impartial
and free from confusion, must be objective, not subjective. Now to
judge others without immediate reference to self, is a process which
may possibly result in strong convictions, but so far from calling
out right feelings, it will, if carried too far, interfere with or
check their natural development. However, the new school of moralists
is the less likely to err in this direction, that it would be totally
inconsistent with that profound knowledge of human nature in which
Positivism has already shown itself so far superior to Catholicism.
No one knows so well as the Positivist that the principal source
of real morality lies in direct exercise of our social sympathies,
whether systematic or spontaneous. He will spare no efforts to develop
these sympathies from the earliest years by every method which sound
philosophy can indicate. It is in this that moral education, whether
private or public, principally consists; and to it mental education
is always to be held subordinate. I shall revert to these remarks in
the next chapter, when I come to the general question of educating the
People.
[Organization of Public
Opinion]
But however efficient the training received in youth, it will not
be enough to regulate our conduct in after years, amidst all the
distracting influences of practical life, unless the same spiritual
power which provides the education prolong its influence over our
maturity. Part of its task will be to recall individuals, classes,
and even nations, when the case requires it, to principles which they
have forgotten or misinterpreted, and to instruct them in the means of
applying them wisely. And here, even more than in the work of education
strictly so called, the appeal will be to Feeling rather than to
pure Reason. Its force will be derived from Public Opinion strongly
organized. If the spiritual power awards its praise and blame justly,
public opinion, as I shall show in the next chapter, will lend it the
most irresistible support. This moral action of Humanity upon each of
her members has always existed whenever there was any real community of
principles and feelings. But its strength will be far greater under the
Positive system. The reality of the doctrine and the social character
of modern civilization give advantages to the new spiritual power which
were denied to Catholicism.
[Commemoration of great men]
And these advantages are brought forward very prominently by the
Positive system of commemoration. Commemoration, when regularly
instituted, is a most valuable instrument in the hands of a spiritual
power for continuing the work of moral education. It was the absolute
character of Catholicism, even more than the defective state of
mediaeval society, that caused the failure of its noble aspirations
to become the universal religion. In spite of all its efforts, its
system of commemoration has always been restricted to very narrow
limits, both in time and space. Outside these limits, Catholicism has
always shown the same blindness and injustice that it now complains
of receiving from its own opponents. Positivism, on the contrary,
can yield the full measure of praise to all times and all countries,
without either weakness or inconsistency. Possessing the true theory
of human development, every mode and phase of that development will be
celebrated. Thus every moral precept will be supported by the influence
of posterity; and this in private life as well as in public, for the
system of commemoration will be applied in the same spirit to the
humblest services as well as to the highest.
While reserving special details for the treatise to which this work is
introductory, I may yet give one illustration of this important aspect
of Positivism; an illustration which probably will be the first step in
the practical application of the system. I would propose to institute
in Western Europe on any days that may be thought suitable, the
yearly celebration of the three greatest of our predecessors, Caesar,
St. Paul and Charlemagne, who are respectively the highest types of
Greco-Roman civilization, of Mediaeval Feudalism, and of Catholicism,
which forms the link between the two periods. The services of these
illustrious men have never yet been adequately recognized, for want of
a sound historical theory enabling us to explain the prominent part
which they played in the development of our race. Even in St. Paul’s
case the omission is noticeable. Positivism gives him a still higher
place than has been given him by Theology; for it looks upon him as
historically the founder of the religion which bears the inappropriate
name of Christianity. In the other two cases the influence of Positive
principles is even more necessary. For Caesar has been almost equally
misjudged by theological and by metaphysical writers; and Catholicism
has done very little for the appreciation of Charlemagne. However,
notwithstanding the absence of any systematic appreciation of these
great men, yet from the reverence with which they are generally
regarded, we can hardly doubt that the celebration here proposed would
meet with ready acceptance throughout Western Europe.
To illustrate my meaning still further, I may observe that history
presents cases where exactly the opposite course is called for, and
which should be held up not for approbation but for infamy. Blame,
it is true, should not be carried to the same extent as praise,
because it stimulates the destructive instincts to a degree which is
always painful and sometimes injurious. Yet strong condemnation is
occasionally desirable. It strengthens social feelings and principles,
if only by giving more significance to our approval. Thus I would
suggest that after doing honour to the three great men who have done so
much to promote the development of our race, there should be a solemn
reprobation of the two principal opponents of progress, Julian and
Bonaparte; the latter being the more criminal of the two, the former
the more insensate. Their influence has been sufficiently extensive to
allow of all the Western nations joining in this damnatory verdict.[6]
The principal function of the spiritual power is to direct the future
of society by means of education; and, as a supplementary part of
education, to pronounce judgment upon the past in the mode here
indicated. But there are functions of another kind, relating more
immediately to the present; and these too result naturally from its
position as an educating body. If the educators are men worthy of
their position, it will give them an influence over the whole course
of practical life, whether private or public. Of course it will merely
be the influence of counsel, and practical men will be free to accept
or reject it; but its weight may be very considerable when given
prudently, and when the authority from which it proceeds is recognized
as competent. The questions on which its advice is most needed are the
relations between different classes. Its action will be coextensive
with the diffusion of Positive principles; for nations professing the
same faith, and sharing in the same education, will naturally accept
the same intellectual and moral directors. In the next chapter I shall
treat this subject more in detail. I merely mention it here as one
among the list of functions belonging to the new spiritual power.
[The political motto of
Positivism: Order and
Progress]
It will now not be difficult to show all the characteristics of
Positivism are summed up in the motto, _Order and Progress_, a motto
which has a philosophical as well as political bearing, and which I
shall always feel glad to have put forward.
Positivism is the only school which has given a definite significance
to these two conceptions, whether regarded from their scientific
or their social aspect. With regard to Progress, the assertion
will hardly be disputed, no definition of it but the Positive ever
having yet been given. In the case of Order, it is less apparent;
but, as I have shown in the first chapter, it is no less profoundly
true. All previous philosophies had regarded Order as stationary, a
conception which rendered it wholly inapplicable to modern politics.
But Positivism, by rejecting the absolute, and yet not introducing
the arbitrary, represents Order in a totally new light, and adapts it
to our progressive civilization. It places it on the firmest possible
foundation, that is, on the doctrine of the invariability of the
laws of nature, which defends it against all danger from subjective
chimeras. The Positivist regards artificial Order in Social phenomena,
as in all others, as resting necessarily upon the Order of nature, in
other words, upon the whole series of natural laws.
[Progress, the development
of Order]
But Order has to be reconciled with Progress: and here Positivism is
still more obviously without a rival. Necessary as the reconciliation
is, no other system has even attempted it. But the facility with
which we are now enabled, by the encyclopædic scale, to pass from the
simplest mathematical phenomena to the most complicated phenomena of
political life, leads at once to a solution of the problem. Viewed
scientifically, it is an instance of that necessary correlation of
existence and movement, which we find indicated in the inorganic
world, and which becomes still more distinct in Biology. Finding it
in all the lower sciences, we are prepared for its appearance in a
still more definite shape in Sociology. Here its practical importance
becomes more obvious, though it had been implicitly involved before. In
Sociology the correlation assumes this form: Order is the condition of
all Progress; Progress is always the object of Order. Or, to penetrate
the question still more deeply, Progress may be regarded simply as the
development of Order; for the order of nature necessarily contains
within itself the germ of all possible progress. The rational view of
human affairs is to look on all their changes, not as new Creations,
but as new Evolutions. And we find this principle fully borne out in
history. Every social innovation has its roots in the past; and the
rudest phases of savage life show the primitive trace of all subsequent
improvement.
[Analysis of Progress:
material, physical,
intellectual, and moral]
Progress then is in its essence identical with Order, and may be looked
upon as Order made manifest. Therefore, in explaining this double
conception on which the Science and Art of society depend, we may at
present limit ourselves to the analysis of Progress. Thus simplified it
is more easy to grasp, especially now that the novelty and importance
of the question of Progress are attracting so much attention. For the
public is becoming instinctively alive to its real significance, as the
basis on which all sound moral and political teaching must henceforth
rest.
Taking, then, this point of view, we may say that the one great object
of life, personal and social, is to become more perfect in every
way; in our external condition first, but also, and more especially,
in our own nature. The first kind of Progress we share in common
with the higher animals; all of which make some efforts to improve
their material position. It is of course the least elevated stage of
progress; but being the easiest, it is the point from which we start
towards the higher stages. A nation that has made no efforts to improve
itself materially, will take but little interest in moral or mental
improvement. This is the only ground on which enlightened men can feel
much pleasure in the material progress of our own time. It stirs up
influences that tend to the nobler kinds of Progress; influences which
would meet with even greater opposition than they do, were not the
temptations presented to the coarser natures by material prosperity
so irresistible. Owing to the mental and moral anarchy in which we
live, systematic efforts to gain the higher degrees of Progress are
as yet impossible; and this explains, though it does not justify, the
exaggerated importance attributed nowadays to material improvements.
But the only kinds of improvement really characteristic of Humanity
are those which concern our own nature; and even here we are not quite
alone; for several of the higher animals show some slight tendencies to
improve themselves physically.
Progress in the higher sense includes improvements of three sorts;
that is to say, it may be Physical, Intellectual, or Moral progress;
the difficulty of each class being in proportion to its value and the
extent of its sphere. Physical progress, which again might be divided
on the same principle, seems under some of its aspects almost the same
thing as material. But regarded as a whole it is far more important
and far more difficult: its influence on the well-being of Man is also
much greater. We gain more, for instance, by the smallest addition
to length of life, or by any increased security for health, than by
the most elaborate improvements in our modes of travelling by land or
water, in which birds will probably always have a great advantage over
us. However, as I said before, physical progress is not exclusively
confined to Man. Some of the animals, for instance, advance as far as
cleanliness, which is the first step in the progressive scale.
Intellectual and Moral progress, then, is the only kind really
distinctive of our race. Individual animals sometimes show it,
but never a whole species, except as a consequence of prolonged
intervention on the part of Man. Between these two highest grades, as
between the two lower, we shall find a difference of value, extent,
and difficulty; always supposing the standard to be the manner in
which they affect Man’s well-being, collectively or individually. To
strengthen the intellectual powers, whether for art or for science,
whether it be the powers of observation or those of induction and
deduction, is, when circumstances allow of their being made available
for social purposes, of greater and more extensive importance, than
all physical, and, _a fortiori_ than all material improvements. But
we know from the fundamental principle laid down in the first chapter
of this work, that moral progress has even more to do with our
well-being than intellectual progress. The moral faculties are more
modifiable, although the effort required to modify them is greater.
If the benevolence or courage of the human race were increased, it
would bring more real happiness than any addition to our intellectual
powers. Therefore to the question, What is the true object of human
life, whether looked at collectively or individually? the simplest
and most precise answer would be, the perfection of our moral nature;
since it has a more immediate and certain influence on our well-being
than perfection of any other kind. All the other kinds are necessary,
if for no other reason than to prepare the way for this; but from the
very fact of this connexion it may be regarded as their representative;
since it involves them all implicitly and stimulates them to increased
activity. Keeping then to the question of moral perfection, we find
two qualities standing above the rest in practical importance, namely,
Sympathy and Energy. Both these qualities are included in the word
_Heart_, which in all European languages has a different meaning for
the two sexes. Both will be developed by Positivism, more directly,
more continuously, and with greater result, than under any former
system. The whole tendency of Positivism is to encourage sympathy;
since it subordinates every thought, desire, and action to social
feeling. Energy is also presupposed, and at the same time fostered, by
the system. For it removes a heavy weight of superstition, it reveals
the true dignity of man, and it supplies an unceasing motive for
individual and collective action. The very acceptance of Positivism
demands some vigour of character; it implies the braving of spiritual
terrors, which were once enough to intimidate the firmest minds.
Progress, then, may be regarded under four successive aspects:
Material, Physical, Intellectual, and Moral. Each of these might again
be divided on the same principle, and we should then discover several
intermediate phases. These cannot be investigated here; and I have
only to note that the philosophical principle of this analysis is
precisely the same as that on which I have based the Classification of
the Sciences. In both cases the order followed is that of increasing
generality and complexity in the phenomena. The only difference is in
the mode in which the two arrangements are developed. For scientific
purposes the lower portion of the scale has to be expanded into greater
detail; while from the social point of view attention is concentrated
on the higher parts. But whether it be the scale of the True or that of
the Good, the conclusion is the same in both. Both alike indicate the
supremacy of social considerations; both point to universal Love as the
highest ideal.
I have now explained the principal purpose of Positive Philosophy,
namely, spiritual reorganization; and I have shown how that purpose
is involved in the Positivist motto, Order and Progress. Positivism,
then, realizes the highest aspirations of mediaeval Catholicism, and
at the same time fulfils the conditions, the absence of which caused
the failure of the Convention. It combines the opposite merits of the
Catholic and the Revolutionary spirit, and by so doing supersedes
them both. Theology and Metaphysics may now disappear without danger,
because the service which each of them rendered is now harmonized with
that of the other, and will be performed more perfectly. The principle
on which this result depends is the separation of spiritual from
temporal power. This, it will be remembered, had always been the chief
subject of contention between the two antagonistic parties.
[Application of our
principles to actual
politics. All government
must for the present be
provisional]
I have spoken of the moral and mental reorganization of Western
Europe as characterizing the second phase of the Revolution. Let us
now see what are its relations with the present state of politics. Of
course the development of Positivism will not be much affected by the
retrograde tendencies of the day, whether theological or metaphysical.
Still the general course of events will exercise an influence upon it,
of which it is important to take account. So too, although the new
doctrine cannot at present do much to modify its surroundings, there
are yet certain points in which action may be taken at once. In the
fourth volume of this treatise the question of a transitional policy
will be carefully considered, with the view of facilitating the advent
of the normal state which social science indicates in a more distant
future. I cannot complete this chapter without some notice of this
provisional policy, which must be carried on until Positivism has made
its way to general acceptance.
The principal feature of this policy is that it is temporary. To set
up any permanent institution in a society which has no fixed opinions
or principles of life, would be hopeless. Until the most important
questions are thoroughly settled, both in principle and practice, the
only measures of the least utility are those which facilitate the
process of reconstruction. Measures adopted with a view to permanence
must end, as we have seen them end so often, in disappointment and
failure, however enthusiastically they may have been received at first.
Inevitable as this consequence of our revolutionary position is, it has
never been understood, except by the great leaders of the republican
movement in 1793. Of the various governments that we have had during
the last two generations, all, except the Convention, have fallen
into the vain delusion of attempting to found permanent institutions,
without waiting for any intellectual or moral basis. And therefore
it is that none but the Convention has left any deep traces in men’s
thoughts or feelings. All its principal measures, even those which
concerned the future more than the present, were avowedly provisional;
and the consequence was that they harmonized well with the peculiar
circumstances of the time. The true philosopher will always look with
respectful admiration on these men, who not only had no rational theory
to guide them, but were encumbered with false metaphysical notions;
and who yet notwithstanding proved themselves the only real statesmen
that Western Europe can boast of since the time of Frederick the Great.
Indeed the wisdom of their policy would be almost unaccountable, only
that the very circumstances which called for it so urgently, were to
some extent calculated to suggest it. The state of things was such
as to make it impossible to settle the government on any permanent
basis. Again, amidst all the wild extravagance of the principles in
vogue, the necessity of a strong government to resist foreign invasion
counteracted many of their worst effects. On the removal of this
salutary pressure, the Convention fell into the common error, though to
a less extent than the Constituent Assembly. It set up a constitution
framed according to some abstract model, which was supposed to be
final, but which did not last so long as the period originally proposed
for its own provisional labours. It is on this first period of its
government that its fame rests.
The plan originally proposed was that the government of the Convention
should last till the end of the war. If this plan could have been
carried out, it would probably have been extended still further, as
the impossibility of establishing any permanent system would have been
generally recognized. The only avowed motive for making the government
provisional was of course the urgent necessity of national defence.
But beneath this temporary motive, which for the time superseded
every other consideration, there was another and a deeper motive for
it, which could not have been understood without sounder historical
principles than were at that time possible. That motive was the utterly
negative character of the metaphysical doctrines then accepted, and the
consequent absence of any intellectual or moral basis for political
reconstruction. This of course was not recognized, but it was really
the principal reason why the establishment of any definite system of
government was delayed. Had the war been brought to an end, clearer
views of the subject would no doubt have been formed; indeed they had
been formed already in the opposite camp, by men of the Neo-catholic
school, who were not absorbed by the urgent question of defending
the Republic. What blinded men to the truth was the fundamental
yet inevitable error of supposing the critical doctrines of the
preceding generation applicable to purposes of construction. They were
undeceived at last by the utter anarchy which the triumph of these
principles occasioned; and the next generation occupied itself with the
counter-revolutionary movement, in which similar attempts at finality
were made by the various reactionist parties. For these parties were
quite as destitute as their opponents of any principles suited to the
task of reconstruction; and they had to fall back upon the old system
as the only recognized basis on which public Order could be maintained.
[Danger of attempting
political reconstruction
before spiritual]
And in this respect the situation is still unchanged. It still retains
its revolutionary character; and any immediate attempt to reorganize
political administration would only be the signal for fresh attempts
at reaction, attempts which now can have no other result than anarchy.
It is true that Positivism has just supplied us with a philosophical
basis for political reconstruction. But its principles are still so new
and undeveloped, and besides are understood by so few, that they cannot
exercise much influence at present on political life. Ultimately, and
by slow degrees, they will mould the institutions of the future; but
meanwhile they must work their way freely into men’s minds and hearts,
and for this at least one generation will be necessary. Spiritual
organization is the only point where an immediate beginning can be
made; difficult as it is, its possibility is at last as certain as
its urgency. When sufficient progress has been made with it, it will
cause a gradual regeneration of political institutions. But any attempt
to modify these too rapidly would only result in fresh disturbances.
Such disturbances, it is true, will never be as dangerous as they
were formerly, because the anarchy of opinion is so profound that it
is far more difficult for men to agree in any fixed principles of
action. The absolute doctrines of the last century which inspired such
intense conviction, can never regain their strength, because, when
brought to the crucial test of experience as well as of discussion,
their uselessness for constructive purposes and their subversive
tendency became evident to every one. They have been weakened, too, by
theological concessions which their supporters, in order to carry on
the government at all, were obliged to make. Consequently the policy
with which they are at present connected is one which oscillates
between reaction and anarchy, or rather which is at once despotic and
destructive, from the necessity of controlling a society which has
become almost as diverse to metaphysical as to theological rule. In
the utter absence, then, of any general convictions, the worst forms
of political commotion are not to be feared, because it would be
impossible to rouse men’s passions sufficiently. But unwise efforts
to set up a permanent system of government would even now lead, in
certain cases, to lamentable disorder, and would at all events be
utterly useless. Quiet at home depends now, like peace abroad, simply
on the absence of disturbing forces; a most insecure basis, since it
is itself a symptom of the extent to which the disorganizing movement
has proceeded. This singular condition must necessarily continue until
the _interregnum_ which at present exists in the moral and intellectual
region comes to an end. As long as there is such an utter want of
harmony in feeling as well as in opinion, there can be no real security
against war or internal disorder. The existing equilibrium has arisen
so spontaneously that it is no doubt less unstable than is generally
supposed. Still it is sufficiently precarious to excite continual
panics, both at home and abroad, which are not only very irritating,
but often exercise a most injurious influence over our policy. Now
attempts at immediate reconstruction of political institutions, instead
of improving this state of things, make it very much worse, by giving
factitious life to the old doctrines, which, being thoroughly worn
out, ought to be left to the natural process of decay. The inevitable
result of restoring them to official authority will be to deter the
public, and even the thinking portion of it, from that free exercise of
the mental powers by which, and by which only, we may hope to arrive
without disturbance at fixed principles of action.
The cessation of war therefore justifies no change in republican
policy. As long as the spiritual interregnum lasts, it must retain its
provisional character. Indeed this character ought to be more strongly
impressed upon it than ever. For no one now has any real belief in the
organic value of the received metaphysical doctrines. They would never
have been revived but for the need of having some sort of political
formula to work with, in default of any real social convictions. But
the revival is only apparent, and it contrasts most strikingly with
the utter absence of systematic principles in most active minds. There
is no real danger of repeating the error of the first revolutionists
and of attempting to construct with negative doctrines. We have only
to consider the vast development of industry, of esthetic culture, and
of scientific study, to free ourselves from all anxiety on this head.
Such things are incompatible with any regard for the metaphysical
teaching of ideologists or psychologists. Nor is there much to fear
in the natural enthusiasm which is carrying us back to the first days
of the Revolution. It will only revive the old republican spirit, and
make us forget the long period of retrogression and stagnation which
have elapsed since the first great outbreak; for this is the point
on which the attention of posterity will be finally concentrated.
But while satisfying these very legitimate feelings, the people will
soon find that the only aspect of this great crisis which we have to
imitate is the wise insight of the Convention during the first part
of its administration, in perceiving that its policy could only be
provisional, and that definite reconstruction must be reserved for
better times. We may fairly hope that the next formal attempt to set
up a constitution according to some abstract ideal, will convince the
French nation, and ultimately the whole West, of the utter futility
of such schemes. Besides, the free discussion which has now become
habitual to us, and the temper of the people, which is as sceptical
of political entities as of Christian mysteries, would make any such
attempts extremely difficult. Never was there a time so unfavourable
to doctrines admitting of no real demonstration: demonstration being
now the only possible basis of permanent belief. Supposing then a new
constitution to be set on foot, and the usual time to be spent in the
process of elaborating it, public opinion will very possibly discard it
before it is completed; not allowing it even the short average duration
of former constitutions. Any attempt to check free discussion on the
subject would defeat its own object; since free discussion is the
natural consequence of our intellectual and social position.
[Politically what is
wanted is Dictatorship,
with liberty of speech and
discussion]
The same conditions which require our policy to be provisional while
the spiritual interregnum lasts, point also to the mode in which
this provisional policy should be carried out. Had the revolutionary
government of the Convention continued till the end of the war, it
would probably have been prolonged up to the present time. But in
one most important respect a modification would have been necessary.
During the struggle for independence what was wanted was a vigorous
dictatorship, combining spiritual with temporal powers: a dictatorship
even stronger than the old monarchy, and only distinguished from
despotism by its ardour in the cause of progress. Without complete
concentration of political power, the republic could never have been
saved. But with peace the necessity for such concentration was at an
end. The only motive for still continuing the provisional system was
the absence of social convictions. But this would also be a motive for
giving perfect liberty of speech and discussion, which till then had
been impossible or dangerous. For liberty was a necessary condition for
elaborating and diffusing a new system of universal principles, as the
only sure basis for the future regeneration of society.
This hypothetical view of changes which might have taken place in the
Conventional government, may be applied to the existing condition of
affairs. It is the policy best adapted for the republican government
which is now arising in all the security of a settled peace, and yet
amidst the most entire anarchy of opinion. The successors of the
Convention, men unworthy of their task, degraded the progressive
dictatorship entrusted to them by the circumstances of the time into a
retrograde tyranny. During the reign of Charles X, which was the last
phase of the reaction, the central power was thoroughly undermined by
the legal opposition of the parliamentary or local power. The central
government still refused to recognize any limits to its authority; but
the growth of free thought made its claims to spiritual jurisdiction
more and more untenable, leaving it merely the temporal authority
requisite for public order. During the neutral period which followed
the counter-revolution, the dictatorship was not merely restricted to
its proper functions, but was legally destroyed; that is the local
power as represented by parliament took the place of the central power.
All pretentions to spiritual influence were abandoned by both; their
thoughts being sufficiently occupied with the maintenance of material
order. The intellectual anarchy of the time made this task difficult
enough; but they aggravated the difficulty by unprincipled attempts
to establish their government on the basis of pure self-interest,
irrespectively of all moral considerations. The restoration of the
republic and the progressive spirit aroused by it has no doubt given to
both legislative and executive a large increase of power: to an extent
indeed which a few years back would have caused violent antipathy. But
it would be a grievous error for either of them to attempt to imitate
the dictatorial style of the Conventional government. Unsuccessful in
any true sense as the attempt would be, it might occasion very serious
disturbances, which like the obsolete metaphysical principles in which
they originate, would be equally dangerous to Order and to Progress.
We see, then, that in the total absence of any fixed principles on
which men can unite, the policy required is one which shall be purely
provisional, and limited almost entirely to the maintenance of material
order. If order be preserved, the situation is in all other respects
most favourable to the work of mental and moral regeneration which
will prepare the way for the society of the future. The establishment
of a republic in France disproves the false claims set up by official
writers in behalf of constitutional government, as if it was the
final issue of the Revolution. Meantime there is nothing irrevocable
in the republic itself, except the moral principle involved in it,
the absolute and permanent preponderance of Social Feeling; in other
words, the concentration of all the powers of Man upon the common
welfare. This is the only maxim of the day which we can accept as
final. It needs no formal sanction, because it is merely the expression
of feelings generally avowed, all prejudices against it having been
entirely swept away. But with the doctrines and the institutions
resulting from them, through which this dominion of social feeling is
to become an organized reality, the republic has no direct connexion;
it would be compatible with many different solutions of the problem.
Politically, the only irrevocable point is the abolition of monarchy,
which for a long time has been in France and to a less extent
throughout the West, the symbol of retrogression.
That spirit of devotion to the public welfare, which is the noblest
feature of republicanism, is strongly opposed to any immediate attempts
at political finality, as being incompatible with conscientious
endeavours to find a real solution of social problems. For before the
practical solution can be hoped for, a systematic basis for it must
exist: and this we can hardly expect to find in the remnants left to
us of the old creeds. All that the true philosopher desires is simply
that the question of moral and intellectual reorganization shall be
left to the unrestricted efforts of thinkers of whatever school. And in
advocating this cause, he will plead the interests of the republic, for
the safety of which it is of the utmost importance that no special set
of principles should be placed under official patronage. Republicanism
then, will do far more to protect free thought, and resist political
encroachment, than was done during the Orleanist government by the
retrograde instincts of Catholicism. Catholic resistance to political
reconstructions was strong, but blind: its place will now be more
than supplied by wise indifference on the part of the public, which
has learnt by experience the inevitable failure of these incoherent
attempts to realize metaphysical Utopias. The only danger of the
position is lest it divert the public, even the more reflective portion
of it, from deep and continuous thought, to practical experiments based
on superficial and hasty considerations. It must be owned that the
temper of mind which now prevails would have been most unfavourable for
the original elaboration of Positivism. That work, however, had already
been accomplished under the Constitutional system; which, while not so
restrictive as the preceding government, was yet sufficiently so to
concentrate our intellectual powers, which of themselves would have
been too feeble, upon the task. The original conception had indeed been
formed during the preceding reign; but its development and diffusion
took place under the parliamentary system. Positivism now offers
itself for practical application to the question of social progress,
which has become again the prominent question, and will ever remain
so. Unfavourable as the present political temper would have been to
the rise of Positivism, it is not at all so to its diffusion; always
supposing its teachers to be men of sufficient dignity to avoid the
snare of political ambition into which thinkers are now so apt to fall.
By explaining, as it alone can explain, the futility and danger of the
various Utopian schemes which are now competing with each other for
the reorganization of society, Positivism will soon be able to divert
public attention from these political chimeras, to the question of a
total reformation of principles and of life.
[Such a dictatorship would
be a step towards the
separation of spiritual and
temporal power]
Republicanism, then, will offer no obstacle to the diffusion of
Positivist principles. Indeed, there is one point of view from which
we may regard it as the commencement of the normal state. It will
gradually lead to the recognition of the fundamental principle that
spiritual power must be wholly independent of every kind of temporal
power, whether central or local. It is not merely that statesmen will
soon have to confess their inability to decide on the merits of a
doctrine which supposes an amount of deep scientific knowledge from
which they must necessarily be precluded. Besides this, the disturbance
caused by the ambition of metaphysical schemers, who are incapable of
understanding the times in which they live, will induce the public to
withdraw their confidence from such men, and give it only to those
who are content to abandon all political prospects, and to devote
themselves to their proper function as philosophers. Thus Republicanism
is, on the whole, favourable to this great principle of Positivism,
the separation of temporal from spiritual power, notwithstanding the
temptations offered to men who wish to carry their theories into
immediate application. The principle seems, no doubt, in opposition
to all our revolutionary prejudices. But the public, as well as the
government, will be brought to it by experience. They will find it the
only means of saving society from the consequences of metaphysical
Utopias, by which Order and Progress are alike threatened. Thinkers
too, those of them at least who are sincere, will cease to regard
it with such blind antipathy, when they see that while it condemns
their aspirations to political influence, it opens out to them a
noble and most extensive sphere of moral influence. Independently of
social considerations, it is the only way in which the philosopher can
maintain the dignity to which his position entitles him, and which is
at present so often compromised by the very success of his political
ambition.
[The motto of 1830, _Liberty
and Public Order_]
The political attitude which ought for the present to be assumed is so
clearly indicated by all the circumstances of the time, that practical
instinct has in this respect anticipated theory. The right view is
well expressed in the motto, _Liberty and Public Order_, which was
adopted spontaneously by the middle class at the commencement of the
neutral period in 1830. It is not known who was the author of it; but
it is certainly far too progressive to be considered as representing
the feelings of the monarchy. It is not of course the expression of
any systematic convictions; but no metaphysical school could have
pointed out so clearly the two principal conditions required by the
situation. Positivism, while accepting it as an inspiration of popular
wisdom, makes it more complete by adding two points which should have
been contained in it at first, only that they were too much opposed
to existing prejudices to have been sanctioned by public opinion.
Both parts of the motto require some expansion. Liberty ought to
include perfect freedom of teaching; Public Order should involve the
preponderance of the central power over the local. I subjoin a few
brief remarks on these two points, which will be considered more fully
in the fourth volume of this treatise.
[Liberty should be extended
to Education]
Positivism is now the only consistent advocate of free speech and
free inquiry. Schools of opinion which do not rest on demonstration,
and would consequently be shaken by any argumentative attacks, can
never be sincere in their wish for Liberty, in the extended sense here
given to it. Liberty of writing we have now had for a long time. But
besides this we want liberty of speech; and also liberty of teaching;
that is to say, the abandonment by the State of all its educational
monopolies. Freedom of teaching, of which Positivists are the only
genuine supporters, has become a condition of the first importance:
and this not merely as a provisional measure, but as an indication of
the normal state of things. In the first place, it is the only means
by which any doctrine that has the power of fixing and harmonizing
men’s convictions can become generally known. To legalize any system
of education would imply that such a doctrine had been already found;
it most assuredly is not the way to find it. But again, freedom of
teaching is a step towards the normal state; it amounts to an admission
that the problem of education is one which temporal authorities are
incompetent to solve. Positivists would be the last to deny that
education ought to be regularly organized. Only they assert, first,
that as long as the spiritual interregnum lasts, no organization is
possible; and secondly, that whenever the acceptance of a new synthesis
makes it possible, it will be effected by the spiritual power to which
that synthesis gives rise. In the meantime no general system of State
education should be attempted. It will be well, however, to continue
State assistance to those branches of instruction which are the most
liable to be neglected by private enterprise, especially reading and
writing. Moreover, there are certain institutions either established
or revived by the Convention for higher training in special subjects;
these ought to be carefully preserved, and brought up to the present
state of our knowledge, for they contain the germs of principles
which will be most valuable when the problem of reorganizing general
education comes before us. But all the institutions abolished by the
Convention ought now to be finally suppressed. Even the Academies
should form no exception to this rule, for the harm which they have
done, both intellectually and morally, since their reinstalment, has
fully justified the wisdom of the men who decided on their abolition.
Government should no doubt exercise constant vigilance over all private
educational institutions; but this should have nothing to do with their
doctrines, but with their morality, a point scandalously neglected
in the present state of the law. These should be the limits of state
interference in education. With these exceptions it should be left to
the unrestricted efforts of private associations, so as to give every
opportunity for a definitive educational system to establish itself.
For to pretend that any satisfactory system exists at present would
only be a hypocritical subterfuge on the part of the authorities.
The most important step towards freedom of education would be the
suppression of all grants to theological or metaphysical societies,
leaving each man free to support the religion and the system of
instruction which he prefers. This, however, should be carried out in
a just and liberal spirit worthy of the cause, and without the least
taint of personal dislike or party feeling. Full indemnity should be
given to members of Churches or Universities, upon whom these changes
would come unexpectedly. By acting in this spirit it will be far less
difficult to carry out measures which are obviously indicated by the
position in which we stand. As there is now no doctrine which commands
general assent, it would be an act of retrogression to give legal
sanction to any of the old creeds, whatever their former claim to
spiritual ascendancy. It is quite in accordance with the republican
spirit to refuse such sanction, notwithstanding the tendency that there
is to allow ideologists to succeed to the Academic offices held under
the constitutional system by psychologists.
[Order demands
centralization]
But Positivism will have as beneficial an influence on Public
Order as on Liberty. It holds, in exact opposition to revolutionary
prejudices, that the central power should preponderate over the local.
The constitutionalist principle of separating the legislative from
the executive is only an empirical imitation of the larger principle
of separating temporal and spiritual power, which was adopted in the
Middle Ages. There will always be a contest for political supremacy
between the central and local authorities; and it is an error into
which, from various causes, we have fallen recently, to attempt
to balance them against each other. The whole tendency of French
history has been to let the central power preponderate, until it
degenerated and became retrograde towards the end of the seventeenth
century. Our present preference for the local power is therefore an
historical anomaly, which is sure to cease as soon as the fear of
reaction has passed away. And as Republicanism secures us against
any dangers of this kind, our political sympathies will soon resume
their old course. The advantages of the central power are, first,
that it is more directly responsible than the other; and, secondly,
that it is more practical and less likely to set up any claims to
spiritual influence. This last feature is of the highest importance,
and is likely to become every day more marked. Whereas the local or
legislative power, not having its functions clearly defined, is very
apt to interfere in theoretical questions without being in any sense
qualified for doing so. Its preponderance would, then, in most cases be
injurious to intellectual freedom, which, as it feels instinctively,
will ultimately result in the rise of a spiritual authority destined
to supersede its own. On the strength of these tendencies, which
have never before been explained, Positivists have little hesitation
in siding in almost all cases with the central as against the local
power. Philosophers, whom no one can accuse of reactionist or servile
views, who have given up all political prospects, and who are devoting
themselves wholly to the work of spiritual reorganization, need not
be afraid to take this course; and they ought to exert themselves
vigorously in making the central power preponderant, limiting the
functions of the local power to what is strictly indispensable. And,
notwithstanding all appearances to the contrary, republicanism will
help to modify the revolutionary feeling on this point. It removes
the distrust of authority caused naturally by the retrograde spirit
of the old monarchy; and it makes it easier to repress any further
tendencies of the same kind, without necessitating an entire change
in the character of our policy for the sake of providing against a
contingency, of which there is now so little fear. As soon as the
central power has given sufficient proof of its progressive intentions,
there will be no unwillingness on the part of the French public to
restrict the powers of the legislative body, whether by reducing it
to one-third of its present numbers, which are so far too large, or
even by limiting its functions to the annual vote of the supplies.
During the last phase of the counter-revolution, and the long period
of parliamentary government which followed, a state of feeling has
arisen on this subject, which is quite exceptional, and which sound
philosophical teaching, and wise action on the part of government,
will easily modify. It is inconsistent with the whole course of French
history; and only leads us into the mistake of imitating the English
constitution, which is adapted to no other country. The very extension
which has just been given to the representative system will bring
it into discredit, by showing it to be as futile and subversive in
practice as philosophy had represented it to be in theory.
[Intimate connexion of
Liberty with Order]
Such, then, is the way in which Positivism would interpret these two
primary conditions of our present policy, Liberty and Public Order.
But besides this, it explains and confirms the connexion which exists
between them. It teaches in the first place, that true liberty is
impossible at present without the vigorous control of a central power,
progressive in the true sense of the word, wise enough to abdicate all
spiritual influence, and keep to its own practical functions. Such a
power is needed in order to check the despotic spirit of the various
doctrines now in vogue. As all of them are more or less inconsistent
with the principle of separation of powers, they would all be willing
to employ forcible means of securing uniformity of opinion. Besides,
the anarchy which is caused by our spiritual interregnum, might, but
for a strong government, very probably interfere with the philosophical
freedom which we now enjoy. Conversely, unless Liberty in the sense
here spoken of be granted, it will be impossible for the central
power to maintain itself in the position which public order requires.
The obstacle to that position at present is the fear of reaction;
and a scrupulous regard for freedom is the only means of removing
these feelings which, though perhaps unfounded, are but too natural.
All fears will be allayed at once when liberty of instruction and
association becomes part of the law of the land. There will then be no
hope, and indeed no wish, on the part of government to regulate our
social institutions in conformity with any particular doctrine.
The object of this chapter has been to show the social value of
Positivism. We have found that not merely does it throw light upon
our Future policy, but that it also teaches us how to act upon the
Present; and these indications have in both cases been based upon
careful examination of the Past, in accordance with the fundamental
laws of human development. It is the only system capable of handling
the problem now proposed by the more advanced portion of our race to
all who would claim to guide them. That problem is this; to reorganize
human life, irrespectively of god or king; recognizing the obligation
of no motive, whether public or private, other than Social Feeling,
aided in due measure by the positive science and practical energy of
Man.