PUBLIC OPINION AS PROCESS[80]
PUBLIC OPINION AN ORGANIC PROCESS RATHER THAN A CONSENSUS—DECISION—THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF MINORITIES
Public opinion, if we wish to see it as it is, should be regarded as an
organic process, and not merely as a state of agreement about some
question of the day. It is, in truth, a complex growth, always
continuous with the past, never becoming simple, and only partly unified
from time to time for the sake of definite action. Like other phases of
intelligence, it is of the nature of a drama, many characters taking
part in a variegated unity of action. The leaders of the day, not only
in politics but in every field, the class groups—capitalists,
socialists, organized labor, professional men, farmers and the like—the
various types of radicals and reactionaries; all these are members of an
intricate, progressing whole. And it is a whole for the same reason that
a play is, because the characters, though divergent and often
conflicting, interact upon one another and create a total movement which
the mind must follow by a total process. For practical uses as well as
for adequate thinking this conception is better than the idea of public
opinion as agreement. It aims to see the real thing, the developing
thought of men, in its genesis and tendencies, and with a view to its
probable operation.
The view that we have no public opinion except when, and in so far as,
people agree, is a remnant of that obsolete social philosophy which
regarded individuals as normally isolated, and social life as due to
their emerging partly from this isolation and coming together in certain
specific ways. It is this habit of thought, apparently, that makes it
difficult for most persons to understand that a group which has maturely
thought over and discussed a matter arrives at a public opinion
regarding it whether the members agree or not. That is, the mental
process has developed about the matter in question and there has come to
be a unity of action, as in a play, which insures that, however opinions
may differ, they make parts of a whole, each having helped to form all
the others. No one would deny unity of action to Macbeth because the
characters are various and conflicting; if they were not, the unity
would be too mechanical to be of interest; and so would it be with
opinion if it attained any such uniformity as is sometimes supposed.
It is true that a process of opinion can hardly exist without a certain
underlying like-mindedness, sufficient for mutual understanding and
influence, among the members of the group; if they are separated into
uncommunicating sections the unity of action is lost. Race difference
may do this (largely, perhaps, by making men think they are more unlike
than they are), religious division has done it, also traditional
hostility, as where one nation has subjugated another, and even social
caste. But communicated differences are the life of opinion, as
cross-breeding is of a natural stock.
The main argument for basing the idea of public opinion upon agreement
is that this is the only method of decision and consequently of action;
which is what all is for; in other words, that it is only as agreement
that opinion can function.
It is true that decision is a phase of the utmost importance,
corresponding to choice in the individual, and that the whole process of
attention, discussion, and democratic organization is, in a sense, a
preparation for it. It is equally true, however, that it is only a
partial and often a superficial act, involving compromise and adjusted
to a particular contingency. A real understanding of the human mind,
both in its individual and public aspects, requires that it be seen in
the whole process, of which majorities and decisions are but transient
phases. The choice of to-day is important; but the inchoate conditions
which are breeding the choices to come are at least equally so. We shall
be interested to find whether Democrats or Republicans win the next
election; but how much more interesting it would be to know what obscure
group of non-conformers is cherishing the idea that will prevail twenty
years from now.
The organic view seems to be the only one that does justice to the
significance of minorities. If you think of agreement as the essential
thing they appear as mere remnants, refractory and irreconcilable
factions of no great importance. But if you have an eye for organic
development, it is obvious that minorities, even small ones, may be the
most pregnant factors in the situation. All progress, all notable change
of any kind, begins with a few, and it is, accordingly, among the small
and beginning parties that we may always look for the tendencies that
are likely to dominate the future. Originality, faith, and the
resolution to make things better are always in a minority, while every
majority is made up for the most part of inert and dependent elements.
It is a fact of the utmost significance when a few, or even a single
individual, are so convinced of something that they are willing to stand
up for it in the midst of a hostile majority; their very isolation
insuring that they have more convincing grounds for their action than
the ordinary undecided and conforming citizen. So Liebknecht, who alone
in the German Reichstag opposed and denounced the war, was perhaps of
more significance than all the more docile mass of the Socialist party.
All great movements have in their early history heroes and often martyrs
who were the seed of their future success.
There is nothing more democratic than intelligent and devoted
non-conformity, because it means that the individual is giving his
freedom and courage to the service of the whole. Subservience, to
majorities, as to any other authority, tends to make vigorous democracy
impossible.