ETHICAL AND POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS
Anti-intellectualism and the State--Syndicalism--Class war,
"direct action." Sorel advocates General Strike--Bergson cited in
support--Unfair use of Bergson's view of reality--His ethic--Value
of Will and Creativeness; not a supporter of impulse. Development of
personality. Intuitive mind of woman. Change and the moral life.
Bergson has not written explicitly upon Ethics. In some quarters,
however, so much has been made of Bergson as a supporter of certain
ethical tendencies and certain social movements, that we must examine
this question of ethical and political implications and try to ascertain
how far this use of Bergson is justified.
Both ethical and political thought to-day are deriving fresh stimulation
from the revision of many formulae, the modification of many conceptions
which the War has inevitably caused. At the same time the keen interest
taken in studies like social psychology and political philosophy
combines with a growing interest in movements such as Guild Socialism
and Syndicalism. The current which in philosophy sets against
intellectualism, in the political realm sets against the State. This
political anti-intellectualism shows a definite tendency to belittle
the State in comparison with economic or social groups. "If social
psychology tends to base the State as it is, on other than intellectual
grounds, Syndicalism is prone to expect that non-intellectual forces
will suffice to achieve the State as it should be." [Footnote: Ernest
Barker in his Political Thought in England from Herbert Spencer to the
Present Day, p. 248.] Other tendencies of the same type are noticeable.
For example, Mr. Bertrand Russell's work on The Principles of Social
Reconstruction is based on the view that impulse is a larger factor in
our social life than conscious purpose.
The Syndicalists have been citing the philosophy of Bergson in support
of their views, and it is most interesting to see how skilfully at times
sayings of Bergson are quoted by them as authoritative, as justification
for their actions, in a spirit akin to that of the devout man who quotes
scripture texts as a guide to conduct.
In this country, Syndicalism has not been popular, and when it did show
its head the government promptly prosecuted the editor and printers
of its organ, The Syndicalist, and suppressed the paper owing to its
aggressive anti-militarism. [Footnote: Imprisonment of Mr. Tom Mann]
English Syndicalism has few supporters and it is a rather diluted form
of French Syndicalism. To understand the movement, we must turn to its
history in France or in America. Its history in Russia will be an
object of research in the future, when more material and more news are
available from that "distressful country." In France local unions or
syndicats were legalized as early as 1884 but 1895 is the important
landmark, being the date of the foundation with which Syndicalism is
associated to-day, the Confederation Generale du Travail, popularly
known as the "C.G.T.," the central trade-union organization in France.
In the main, Syndicalism is an urban product, and has not many adherents
among the agricultural population. In America a "Federation of Labour"
was formed in 1886, but the Syndicalist organization there is the body
known as "The Industrial Workers of the World." In its declaration
of policy, it looks forward to a union which is to embrace the whole
working class and to adopt towards the capitalist class an unending
warfare, until the latter is expropriated. "The working class and the
employing class," says the declaration, "have nothing in common. Between
these two classes a struggle must go on until all the toilers come
together on the industrial field and take and hold that which they
produce by their labour." Among the leaders of Syndicalist thought on
the Continent may be mentioned the names of three prominent Frenchmen,
Berth, Lagardelle, and Sorel, together with that of the young Italian
professor Labriola, who is leading the increasingly active party in his
own country.
In France, Italy, and America alike, Syndicalism stands for the
class-war. Its central feature is the idea of a General Strike. It
manifests a hatred of the State, which makes it bitterly opposed to
State Socialism, which it regards as centralized and tyrannical, or to a
Labour-party of any kind in Parliament. [Footnote: Attempts at carrying
out a General Strike, in France, Sweden, Italy, and Spain have failed.
The greatest Strikes have been: Railwaymen in Italy, in 1907; Postal
Workers in France, in 1909. Miners in New South Wales, in 1909, and
in Sweden, 1909; Miners and Railwaymen in England; Textile Workers in
Massachusetts, 1912; Railwaymen in England, 1919, in France, 1920.] It
regards the State as fixed, rigid, and intellectual, and adopts all
the Bergsonian anathemas it can find which condemn intellectual
constructions, concepts, and thought in general. Its war-cry is not only
"Down with Capitalism" but also, in a great number of cases, "Down
with Intellectualism"! Instinct and impulse alone are to be guides.
Syndicalism, unlike Socialism, has no programme--it does not believe in
a prearranged plan. Reality, it says, quoting Bersgon, has no plan. It
says, "Let us act, act instinctively and impulsively against what we
feel to be wrong, and the future will grow out of our acting." We find
Georges Sorel, the philosopher of Syndicalism, talking about what he
terms the INTUITION of Socialism, and he talks emphatically about the
tremendous moral value of strikes, apart from any material gain achieved
by them. He believes religiously in a General Strike as the great ideal,
but considers it a myth capable of rousing enthusiasm in the workers,
an ideal to which they must strive, a myth as inspiring as the belief
of the early Christians in the Second Coming of Christ, which, although
quite a false belief, contributed largely to the success of the early
Church. "Strikes," says Sorel, "have engendered in the proletariat the
most noble, the most profound, the most moving sentiments they possess.
The General Strike groups these in a composite picture, and by bringing
together, gives to each its maximum intensity; appealing to the most
acute memories of particular conflicts, it colours with an intense life
all the details of the composition presented to the mind. We obtain thus
an intuition of Socialism which language cannot clearly express and we
obtain it in a symbol instantly perceived, such as is maintained in
the Bergsonian philosophy." [Footnote: Quoted by C. Bougle, in an
interesting article Syndicalistes et Bergsoniens, Revue du mois, April
10, 1909. And by Rev. Rhondda Williams in Syndicalism in France and its
Relation to the Philosophy of Bergson, Hibbert Journal, 1914. Also by
J. W. Scott in his book Syndicalism and Philosophical Realism, 1919, pp.
39-40, and by Harley in Syndicalism.] In England, although the idea
of the General Strike has not been so prominent, yet in recent years
Strikes have assumed an aspect different from those of former years.
Workers who had "struck" before for definite objects, for wages or
hours, or reformed workshop conditions, now seem to be seeking after
something vaster--a fundamental alteration in industrial conditions or
the total abolition of the present system. The spirit of unrest is on
the increase; no doubt War conditions have, in many cases, intensified
it, but there is in the whole industrial world an instinctive impulse
showing itself, which is issuing in Syndicalist and Bolshevist
[Footnote: "Bolshevik"--simply the Russian word for majority party as
distinct from Mensheviks or minority.] activities of various kinds.
Syndicalism is undoubtedly revolutionary. There are Les Syndicats
rouges and Les Syndicats jaunes, of which the "Reds" are by far the
most revolutionary. [Footnote: See article Des Ouvriers syndiques et le
Syndicalisme jaune, Revue de metaphysique et morale, 1912] The C.G.T.
and the Industrial Workers of the World are out for what they call
"direct action." Their anarchy is really an organization directed
against organization, at least against that organization we know as the
modern State. They have no hope of salvation for themselves coming about
through the State in any way. It has become somewhat natural for us
to think of the social reformer as a Member of Parliament and of the
revolutionary socialist as a "strike-agitator." The cries of "Don't
vote!" "Don't enlist!" are heard, and care is taken to keep the workman
from ceasing to quarrel with his employer. Any discussion of the
rights or wrongs of any Strike is condemned at once. [Footnote: Ramsay
MacDonald was condemned by the Syndicalists for claiming that a strike
MIGHT be wrong.] All Strikes are regarded as right and as an approach
to the ideal of the General Strike. Sorel cites Bergson as calling us
to turn from traditional thought, to seek reality in the dynamic, rather
than the static. He claims that the Professor of Philosophy at the
College de France really co-operates with the C.G.T. An unexpected
harmony arises "between the flute of personal meditation, and the
trumpet of social revolution, and the workman is inspired by being made
to feel that the elan ouvrier est frere de l'elan vital." [Footnote:
Quoted by C. Bougie in the article previously mentioned.] As Bergson
speaks of all movement as unique and indivisible, so the triumphant
movement of the General Strike is to be regarded as a whole, no analysis
is to be made of its parts. As the portals of the future stand wide
open, as the future is being made, so Bergson tells us, that is deemed
an excuse by the Syndicalists for having no prearranged plan of the
conduct of the General Strike, and no conception of what is to be done
afterwards. It is unforeseen and unforeseeable. All industries, however,
are to be in the hands of those who work them, the present industrial
system is to be swept away. The new order which is to follow will have
entirely new moral codes. Sorel justifies violence to be used against
the existing order, but says he wishes to avoid unnecessary blood-shed
or brutality. [Footnote: Reflections on Violence. It is interesting to
note that Bergson refers briefly to Sorel as an original thinker whom it
is impossible to place in any category or class, in La Philosophie, p.
13.] He remarks however, in this connexion, that ancient society, with
all its brutality, compares favourably with modern society which has
replaced ferocity by cunning. The ancient peoples had less hypocrisy
than we have; this, in his opinion, justifies violence in the overthrow
of the modern system and the creation of a nobler ethic than that on
which the modern State is based. For this reason, he disagrees with most
of his Syndicalist colleagues, and condemns sabotage and also the ca
canny policy, both of which are a kind of revenge upon the employer,
based on the principle of "bad work for bad pay." He would have the
workers produce well now, and urges that moral progress is to be aimed
at no less than material progress.
It certainly seems, however, that the Syndicalists are making an unfair
use of Bergson. They have got hold of three or four points rather out of
relation to their context, and are making the most of them. These points
are, chiefly, his remarks against the Intellect, his appreciation
of Instinct and Intuition, his insistence on Freedom and on the
Indeterminateness of the Future. In the hands of the Syndicalists these
become in effect: "Never mind what you think, rouse up your feeling
intensely; act as you feel and then see what you think." Briefly
this amounts to saying: "Act on impulse, behave instinctively and not
rationally." In too many cases, as we know, this is equivalent to a
merely selfish "Down tools if you feel like it." Now so far from Bergson
really giving any countenance to capricious behaviour, or mere impulse,
he expressly condemns such action. Although the future is being made, he
does not admit that it will be merely CAPRICIOUSLY made, and he condemns
the man of mere impulse along with the dreamer, in a fine passage
where he speaks of the value of an intelligent memory in practical
life.[Footnote: See p. 48 of the present work.] When the Syndicalists
assert that elan, instinct, impulse, or intuition are a better guide
than intelligence and reasoned principles, and cite Bergson as their
authority, they omit an important qualification which upsets their
theory entirely, for Bergson's anti-intellectualism is not at all of the
type which they advocate. He does not intend to rule Intellect out of
practical affairs. Indeed it is just the opposite that he asserts, for,
in his view, the Intellect is pre-eminently fitted for practical life,
for action, and it is for this very reason that he maintains it does not
give us insight into reality itself, which Intuition alone can do. He
does not wish, however, to decrease the small element of rationality
manifested in ethical and political life, least of all to make men
less rational, in the sense that they are to become mere creatures of
Impulse.
Nevertheless, Bergson's great emphasis on Will and Creativeness condemns
any laissez-faire type of political theory. It would be wrong for us to
accept the social order which is felt to be imperfect and unjust in so
many ways, simply because we find ourselves in it and fear we cannot
work a way out. WE HAVE GREAT POWER OF CREATION, AND IN LARGE MEASURE WE
CAN CREATE WHAT WE WILL IN THE WORLD OF POLITICS AND SOCIAL LIFE, and it
is good that men generally should be made to see this. But it is of very
vital importance that we should will the right thing. This we are not
likely to do impulsively and without reflection. Even if we admit
Mr. Russell's contention that "impulse has more effect than conscious
purpose in moulding men's lives" [Footnote: Principles of Social
Reconstruction, Preface, p. 5.] and agree that "it is not the weakening
of impulse that is to be desired, but the direction of impulse toward
life and growth," [Footnote: p. 18. Cf. the whole of the first chapter
on The Principle of Growth.] yet, we none the less assert that instinct
is an insufficient guide in the determination of social behaviour, and
ask how the direction of impulse, of which Mr. Russell himself speaks,
is to be arrived at? Surely our only hope lies in striving to make
men not less, but more rational in order that they may grasp--however
dimly--something of what is implied in ethical and political ideals,
that they may recognize in society some embodiment of will and purpose
and come to look upon Thought and Reason as the unifying and organizing
principles of human society.
We cannot help wishing that Bergson had given us some contribution
to the study of Ethics. In one of his letters to Father de Tonquedec
regarding the relation of his philosophy to Theology, we find him
remarking that "Before these conclusions [theological statements] can be
set out with greater precision, or considered at greater length, certain
problems of quite another kind would have to be attacked--the problems
of Ethics. I am not sure that I shall ever publish anything on this
subject. I shall do so only if I attain the results that appear to me
as demonstrable or as clearly to be shown as those of my other books."
[Footnote: In Etudes (Revue des Peres de Jesus), Vol. CXXX, pp. 514,
515, 1912.] Prior to the War, however, we know that Bergson was taking
up the problem of working out the implications of his philosophy in the
sphere of social ethics, with particular reference to the meaning
of "Duty" and the significance of "Personality." Although his
investigations of these supremely important problems have not yet been
completed or made public, nevertheless certain ethical implications
which have an important bearing on personal and social life seem to be
contained in what he has already written.
In its application to social life, Bergson's philosophy would involve
the laying of greater stress upon the need for all members of society
having larger opportunities of being more fully themselves, of being
self-creative and having fuller powers of self-expression as free
creative agents. It would lay emphasis upon the value of the personality
of the worker and would combat the systematic converting of him into
a mere "hand." Thus would be set in clearer light the claims of human
personality to create and to enjoy a good life in the widest sense, to
enter into fuller sympathy and fellowship with other personalities, and
so develop a fuller and richer form of existence than is possible under
present social and industrial conditions. It would mean a transvaluation
of all social values, an esteeming of personality before property, a
recognition of material goods as means to a good life, when employed in
the social service of the spirit of man. It would involve a denunciation
of the enslavement of man's spirit to the production of material wealth.
Each man would be a member of a community of personalities, each of
unique value, treating each other, not as means to their own particular
selfish ends, but as ends in themselves. At the same time it would
involve the putting of the personality of the citizen in the foremost
place in our social and political life, instead of a development of a
purely class consciousness with its mischievous distinctions.
Articles have been written dealing with Bergson's message to Feminism.
This point is not without its importance in our modern life. It must
be admitted that the present system of civilization with its scientific
campaign of conquest of the material environment has been the work of
man's intellect. In the ruder stages of existence women's subordination
to men may have been necessary and justifiable. But in the development
of society it has become increasingly less necessary, and humanity
is now at a stage where the contributions of women to society are
absolutely vital to its welfare and progress. Woman is proverbially and
rightly regarded as more intuitive than man. This need not be taken to
mean that, given the opportunity of intellectual development (until now
practically denied to her), woman would not show as great ability in
this direction as man. But it is an undeniable fact that woman has kept
more closely to the forces of the great life-principle, both by the fact
that in her rests the creative power for the continuation of the human
family and also by the fact that the development of the personalities of
children has been her function. The subjection in which women have been
largely kept until now has not only hindered them from taking part in
the work of society as a whole and from expressing their point of view,
but has meant that many of them have little or no knowledge of their
capacities and abilities in wider directions. However, with their
increasing realization of their own powers, with the granting of
increased opportunities to them, and an adequate recognition of their
personality side by side with that of men, achievements of supreme value
for humanity as a whole may be expected from them. In certain spheres
they may be found much better adapted than are men to achieve a vision
which will raise human life to a higher plane and give it greater worth.
More especially in the realms of ethical development, of social science,
problems of sex, of war and peace, of child welfare, health, and
education, of religion and philosophy we may hope to have valuable
contributions from the more intuitive mind of woman. "It is not in the
fighting male of the race: it is in Woman that we have the future centre
of Power in civilization." [Footnote: Benjamin Kidd in The Science
of Power, p. 195. This is more fully shown in his chapters, Woman the
Psychic Centre of Power in the Social Integration, and The Mind of
Woman, pp. 192-257.] The wandering Dante required for his guidance
not only the intellectual faculties of a Vergil but in addition the
intuitive woman-soul of a Beatrice to lead him upward and on.
In La Conscience et la Vie [Footnote: L'Energie spirituelle, p.
27 (Mind-Energy).] Bergson indicates slightly his views on SOCIAL
evolution--c'est a la vie sociale que l'evolution aboutit, comme si le
besoin s'en etait fait sentir des le debut, ou plutot comme si quelque
aspiration originelle et essentielle de la vie ne pouvait trouver que
dans la societe sa pleine satisfaction. He seems inclined to turn his
attention to the unity of life, not simply as due to an identity of
original impulse but to a common aspiration. There is involved a process
of subordination and initiative on the part of the individual. The
existence of society necessitates a certain subordination, while
its progress depends on the free initiative of the individual. It is
extremely dangerous for any society, whether it be an International
League, a State, either Communistic or Capitalistic, a Trade Union, or
a Church, to suppress individual liberty in the interests of greater
social efficiency or of increased production or rigid uniformity of
doctrine. With the sacrifice of individual initiative will go the loss
of all "soul," and the result will be degeneration to a mechanical type
of existence, a merely stagnant institution expressing nothing of man's
spirit. This personal power of initiative Bergson appeals to each one
to maintain. In an important passage of his little work on Laughter he
makes a personal moral appeal.
"What life and society require of each of us is a constantly alert
attention, that discerns the outlines of the present situation, together
with a certain elasticity of mind and body to enable us to adapt
ourselves in consequence." [Footnote: Laughter, p. 18 (Fr. p. 18).] The
lack of tension and elasticity gives rise to mental deficiency and to
grave inadaptability which produces misery and crime. Society demands
not only that we live but that we live well. This means that we must be
truly alive; for Bergson, the moral ideal is to keep spiritually alert.
We must be our real, living selves, and not hide behind the social self
of hypocrisy and habit. We must avoid being the victims of mechanism or
automatism. We must avoid at all costs "getting into a rut" morally or
spiritually. Change and vision are both necessary to our welfare. Where
there is no vision, no undying fire of idealism, the people perish.
Resistance to change is the sin against the Holy Spirit. Bergson is
opposed to the conventional view of morality as equivalent to rigidity,
and grasps the important truth that if morality is to be of worth at all
it must lie not in a fixed set of rules, habits, or conventions, but in
a spirit of living. This is of very great ethical importance indeed,
as it means that we must revise many of our standards of character. For
example, how often do we hear of one who, holding an obviously false
view long and obstinately, is praised as consistent, whereas a mind
which moves and develops with the times, attempting always to
adjust itself to changing conditions in its intellectual or material
environment, is contemptuously dubbed as "changeable" by the moralists
of rigidity. We must, however, learn that consistency of character
does not mean lack of change. Stanchness of character is too often
mere obstinate resistance to change. We must therefore be on our guard
against those who would run ethics into rigid moulds, and so raise up
static concepts and infallible dogmas for beliefs or action. Change
must be accepted as a principle which it is both futile and immoral to
ignore, even in the moral life. This does not mean setting up caprice
or impulsiveness, for in so far as our change of character expresses
the development of the single movement of our own inner life it will be
quite other than capricious, but it will be change, and a change which
is quite consistent, a creative evolution of our personality.
No merely materialistic ethic can breathe in the atmosphere of Bergson's
thought, which sets human consciousness in a high place and insists upon
the fact of Freedom. He maintains a point of view far removed from the
old naturalistic ethic; he does take some account of "values," freedom,
creativeness, and joy (as distinct from pleasure). He points out that
Matter, although to a degree the tool of Spirit, is nevertheless the
enemy who threatens us with a lapse into mere automatism which is only
the parody of true life. The eternal conflict of Matter and Spirit
in Evolution demands that we place ourselves on the side of spiritual
rather than merely material values. We must not be like "the man with
the muck rake." Our conceptions of goodness must be not merely static
but dynamic, for the moral life is essentially an evolution--"a growth
in grace." It means a constant "putting on of the new man," never
"counting oneself to have attained," for spirituality is a progress to
ever new creations, the spiritual life is an unending adventure, and is,
moreover, one which is hampered and crushed by all refusals to recognize
that Change is the fundamental feature of the universe. Nothing can
be more mischievous, more detrimental to moral progress--which is
ultimately the only progress of value and significance to humanity--than
the deification of the status quo either in the individual or in society
as a whole.