science, but also its vital impotence and even its mischievous action
whenever, through its official licensed representatives, it arrogantly
claims the right to govern life. The mission of science is, by
observation of the general relations of passing and real facts,
to establish the general laws inherent in the development of the
phenomena of the physical and social world; it fixes, so to speak, the
unchangeable landmarks of humanity's progressive march by indicating the
general conditions which it is necessary to rigorously observe and
always fatal to ignore or forget. In a word, science is the compass of
life; but it is not life. Science is unchangeable, impersonal, general,
abstract, insensible, like the laws of which it is but the ideal
reproduction, reflected or mental--that is cerebral (using this word to
remind us that science itself is but a material product of a material
organ, the _brain_). Life is wholly fugitive and temporary, but also
wholly palpitating with reality and individuality, sensibility,
sufferings, joys, aspirations, needs, and passions. It alone
spontaneously creates real things and beings. Science creates nothing;
it establishes and recognizes only the creations of life. And every time
that scientific men, emerging from their abstract world, mingle with
living creation in the real world, all that they propose or create is
poor, ridiculously abstract, bloodless and lifeless, still-born, like
the _homunculus_ created by Wagner, the pedantic disciple of the
immortal Doctor Faust. It follows that the only mission of science is
to enlighten life, not to govern it.
The government of science and of men of science, even be they
positivists, disciples of Auguste Comte, or, again, disciples of the
_doctrinaire_ school of German Communism, cannot fail to be impotent,
ridiculous, inhuman, cruel, oppressive, exploiting, maleficent. We may
say of men of science, _as such_, what I have said of theologians and
metaphysicians: they have neither sense nor heart for individual and
living beings. We cannot even blame them for this, for it is the natural
consequence of their profession. In so far as they are men of science,
they have to deal with and can take interest in nothing except
generalities; that do the laws[5] ... they are not exclusively men
of science, but are also more or less men of life.[6]
* * * * *
Nevertheless, we must not rely too much on this. Though we may be well
nigh certain that a _savant_ would not dare to treat a man to-day as he
treats a rabbit, it remains always to be feared that the _savants_ as
a body, if not interfered with, may submit living men to scientific
experiments, undoubtedly less cruel but none the less disagreeable to
their victims. If they cannot perform experiments upon the bodies of
individuals, they will ask nothing better than to perform them on the
social body, and that is what must be absolutely prevented.
In their existing organization, monopolizing science and remaining thus
outside of social life, the _savants_ form a separate caste, in many
respects analogous to the priesthood. Scientific abstraction is their
God, living and real individuals are their victims, and they are the
consecrated and licensed sacrificers.
Science cannot go outside of the sphere of abstractions. In this respect
it is infinitely inferior to art, which, in its turn, is peculiarly
concerned also with general types and general situations, but which
incarnates them by an artifice of its own in forms which, if they are
not living in the sense of real life, none the less excite in our
imagination the memory and sentiment of life; art in a certain sense
individualizes the types and situations which it conceives; by means of
the individualities without flesh and bone, and consequently permanent
and immortal, which it has the power to create, it recalls to our minds
the living, real individualities which appear and disappear under our
eyes. Art, then, is as it were the return of abstraction to life;
science, on the contrary, is the perpetual immolation of life, fugitive,
temporary, but real, on the altar of eternal abstractions.
Science is as incapable of grasping the individuality of a man as that
of a rabbit, being equally indifferent to both. Not that it is ignorant
of the principle of individuality: it conceives it perfectly as a
principle, but not as a fact. It knows very well that all the animal
species, including the human species, have no real existence outside of
an indefinite number of individuals, born and dying to make room for new
individuals equally fugitive. It knows that in rising from the animal
species to the superior species the principle of individuality becomes
more pronounced; the individuals appear freer and more complete. It
knows that man, the last and most perfect animal of earth, presents the
most complete and most remarkable individuality, because of his power to
conceive, concrete, personify, as it were, in his social and private
existence, the universal law. It knows, finally, when it is not vitiated
by theological or metaphysical, political or judicial _doctrinairisme_,
or even by a narrow scientific pride, when it is not deaf to the
instincts and spontaneous aspirations of life--it knows (and this is its
last word) that respect for man is the supreme law of Humanity, and that
the great, the real object of history, its only legitimate object, is
the humanization and emancipation, the real liberty, the prosperity and
happiness of each individual living in society. For, if we would
not fall back into the liberticidal fiction of the public welfare
represented by the State, a fiction always founded on the systematic
sacrifice of the people, we must clearly recognize that collective
liberty and prosperity exist only so far as they represent the sum of
individual liberties and prosperities.
Science knows all these things, but it does not and cannot go beyond
them. Abstraction being its very nature, it can well enough conceive the
principle of real and living individuality, but it can have no dealings
with real and living individuals; it concerns itself with individuals in
general, but not with Peter or James, not with such or such a one, who,
so far as it is concerned, do not, cannot, have any existence. Its
individuals, I repeat, are only abstractions.
Now, history is made, not by abstract individuals, but by acting, living
and passing individuals. Abstractions advance only when borne forward by
real men. For these beings made, not in idea only, but in reality of
flesh and blood, science has no heart: it considers them at most as
_material for intellectual and social development_. What does it care
for the particular conditions and chance fate of Peter or James? It
would make itself ridiculous, it would abdicate, it would annihilate
itself, if it wished to concern itself with them otherwise than as
examples in support of its eternal theories. And it would be ridiculous
to wish it to do so, for its mission lies not there. It cannot grasp the
concrete; it can move only in abstractions. Its mission is to busy
itself with the situation and the _general_ conditions of the existence
and development, either of the human species in general, or of such a
race, such a people, such a class or category of individuals; the
_general_ causes of their prosperity, their decline, and the best
_general_ methods of securing their progress in all ways. Provided it
accomplishes this task broadly and rationally, it will do its whole
duty, and it would be really unjust to expect more of it.
But it would be equally ridiculous, it would be disastrous to entrust it
with a mission which it is incapable of fulfilling. Since its own nature
forces it to ignore the existence of Peter and James, it must never be
permitted, nor must anybody be permitted in its name, to govern Peter
and James. For it were capable of treating them almost as it treats
rabbits. Or rather, it would continue to ignore them; but its licensed
representatives, men not at all abstract, but on the contrary in very
active life and having very substantial interests, yielding to the
pernicious influence which privilege inevitably exercises upon men,
would finally fleece other men in the name of science, just as they
have been fleeced hitherto by priests, politicians of all shades, and
lawyers, in the name of God, of the State, of judicial Right.
What I preach then is, to a certain extent, the _revolt of life against
science_, or rather against the _government of science_, not to destroy
science--that would be high treason to humanity--but to remand it to its
place so that it can never leave it again. Until now all human history
has been only a perpetual and bloody immolation of millions of poor
human beings in honor of some pitiless abstraction--God, country, power
of State, national honor, historical rights, judicial rights, political
liberty, public welfare. Such has been up to to-day the natural,
spontaneous, and inevitable movement of human societies. We cannot undo
it; we must submit to it so far as the past is concerned, as we submit
to all natural fatalities. We must believe that that was the only
possible way to educate the human race. For we must not deceive
ourselves: even in attributing the larger part to the Machiavellian
wiles of the governing classes, we have to recognize that no minority
would have been powerful enough to impose all these horrible sacrifices
upon the masses if there had not been in the masses themselves a dizzy
spontaneous movement which pushed them on to continual self-sacrifice,
now to one, now to another of these devouring abstractions, the vampires
of history, ever nourished upon human blood.
We readily understand that this is very gratifying to the theologians,
politicians, and jurists. Priests of these abstractions, they live only
by the continual immolation of the people. Nor is it more surprising
that metaphysics, too, should give its consent. Its only mission is to
justify and rationalize as far as possible the iniquitous and absurd.
But that positive science itself should have shown the same tendencies
is a fact which we must deplore while we establish it. That it has done
so is due to two reasons: in the first place, because, constituted
outside of life, it is represented by a privileged body; and in the
second place, because thus far it has posited itself as an absolute and
final object of all human development. By a judicious criticism, which
it can and finally will be forced to pass upon itself, it would
understand, on the contrary, that it is only a means for the realization
of a much higher object--that of the complete humanization of the _real_
situation of all the _real_ individuals who are born, who live, and who
die, on earth.
The immense advantage of positive science over theology, metaphysics,
politics, and judicial right consists in this--that, in place of the
false and fatal abstractions set up by these doctrines, it posits true
abstractions which express the general nature and logic of things, their
general relations, and the general laws of their development. This
separates it profoundly from all preceding doctrines, and will assure it
for ever a great position in society: it will constitute in a certain
sense society's collective consciousness. But there is one aspect in
which it resembles all these doctrines: its only possible object being
abstractions, it is forced by its very nature to ignore real men,
outside of whom the truest abstractions have no existence. To remedy
this radical defect positive science will have to proceed by a different
method from that followed by the doctrines of the past. The latter have
taken advantage of the ignorance of the masses to sacrifice them with
delight to their abstractions, which, by the way, are always very
lucrative to those who represent them in flesh and bone. Positive
science, recognizing its absolute inability to conceive real individuals
and interest itself in their lot, must definitely and absolutely
renounce all claim to the government of societies; for if it should
meddle therein, it would only sacrifice continually the living men whom
it ignores to the abstractions which constitute the sole object of its
legitimate preoccupations.
The true science of history, for instance, does not yet exist; scarcely
do we begin to-day to catch a glimpse of its extremely complicated
conditions. But suppose it were definitely developed, what could it give
us? It would exhibit a faithful and rational picture of the natural
development of the general conditions--material and ideal, economical,
political and social, religious, philosophical, aesthetic, and
scientific--of the societies which have a history. But this universal
picture of human civilization, however detailed it might be, would never
show anything beyond general and consequently _abstract_ estimates. The
milliards of individuals who have furnished the _living and suffering
materials_ of this history at once triumphant and dismal--triumphant by
its general results, dismal by the immense hecatomb of human victims
"crushed under its car"--those milliards of obscure individuals without
whom none of the great abstract results of history would have been
obtained--and who, bear in mind, have never benefited by any of these
results--will find no place, not even the slightest, in our annals. They
have lived and been sacrificed, crushed for the good of abstract
humanity, that is all.
Shall we blame the science of history? That would be unjust and
ridiculous. Individuals cannot be grasped by thought, by reflection, or
even by human speech, which is capable of expressing abstractions only;
they cannot be grasped in the present day any more than in the past.
Therefore social science itself, the science of the future, will
necessarily continue to ignore them. All that we have a right to demand
of it is that it shall point us with faithful and sure hand to the
_general causes of individual suffering_--among these causes it will not
forget the immolation and subordination (still too frequent, alas!) of
living individuals to abstract generalities--at the same time showing
us the _general conditions necessary to the real emancipation of the
individuals living in society_. That is its mission; those are its
limits, beyond which the action of social science can be only impotent
and fatal. Beyond those limits being the _doctrinaire_ and governmental
pretentions of its licensed representatives, its priests. It is time to
have done with all popes and priests; we want them no longer, even if
they call themselves Social Democrats.
Once more, the sole mission of science is to light the road. Only Life,
delivered from all its governmental and _doctrinaire_ barriers, and
given full liberty of action, can create.
How solve this antinomy?
On the one hand, science is indispensable to the rational organization
of society; on the other, being incapable of interesting itself in that
which is real and living, it must not interfere with the real or
practical organization of society.
This contradiction can be solved only in one way: by the liquidation of
science as a moral being existing outside the life of all, and
represented by a body of breveted _savants_; it must spread among the
masses. Science, being called upon to henceforth represent society's
collective consciousness, must really become the property of everybody.
Thereby, without losing anything of its universal character, of which
it can never divest itself without ceasing to be science, and while
continuing to concern itself exclusively with general causes, the
conditions and fixed relations of individuals and things, it will become
one in fact with the immediate and real life of all individuals. That
will be a movement analogous to that which said to the Protestants at
the beginning of the Reformation that there was no further need of
priests for man, who would henceforth be his own priest, every man,
thanks to the invisible intervention of the Lord Jesus Christ alone,
having at last succeeded in swallowing his good God. But here the
question is not of Jesus Christ, nor good God, nor of political liberty,
nor of judicial right--things all theologically or metaphysically
revealed, and all alike indigestible. The world of scientific
abstractions is not revealed; it is inherent in the real world, of which
it is only the general or abstract expression and representation. As
long as it forms a separate region, specially represented by the
_savants_ as a body, this ideal world threatens to take the place of a
good God to the real world, reserving for its licensed representatives
the office of priests. That is the reason why it is necessary to
dissolve the special social organization of the _savants_ by general
instruction, equal for all in all things, in order that the masses,
ceasing to be flocks led and shorn by privileged priests, may take into
their own hands the direction of their destinies.[7]
But until the masses shall have reached this degree of instruction, will
it be necessary to leave them to the government of scientific men?
Certainly not. It would be better for them to dispense with science than
allow themselves to be governed by _savants_. The first consequence of
the government of these men would be to render science inaccessible to
the people, and such a government would necessarily be aristocratic,
because the existing scientific institutions are essentially
aristocratic. An aristocracy of learning! from the practical point of
view the most implacable, and from the social point of view the most
haughty and insulting--such would be the power established in the name
of science. This _regime_ would be capable of paralyzing the life
and movement of society. The _savants_ always presumptuous, ever
self-sufficient and ever impotent, would desire to meddle with
everything, and the sources of life would dry up under the breath
of their abstractions.
Once more, Life, not science, creates life; the spontaneous action of
the people themselves alone can create liberty. Undoubtedly it would be
a very fortunate thing if science could, from this day forth, illuminate
the spontaneous march of the people towards their emancipation. But
better an absence of light than a false and feeble light, kindled only
to mislead those who follow it. After all, the people will not lack
light. Not in vain have they traversed a long historic career, and paid
for their errors by centuries of misery. The practical summary of their
painful experiences constitutes a sort of traditional science, which in
certain respects is worth as much as theoretical science. Last of all, a
portion of the youth--those of the bourgeois students who feel hatred
enough for the falsehood, hypocrisy, injustice, and cowardice of the
bourgeoisie to find courage to turn their backs upon it, and passion
enough to unreservedly embrace the just and human cause of the
proletariat--those will be, as I have already said, fraternal
instructors of the people; thanks to them, there will be no occasion
for the government of the _savants_.
If the people should beware of the government of the _savants_, all the
more should they provide against that of the inspired idealists. The
more sincere these believers and poets of heaven, the more dangerous
they become. The scientific abstraction, I have said, is a rational
abstraction, true in its essence, necessary to life, of which it is the
theoretical representation, or, if one prefers, the conscience. It may,
it must be, absorbed and digested by life. The idealistic abstraction,
God, is a corrosive poison, which destroys and decomposes life,
falsifies and kills it. The pride of the idealists, not being personal
but divine, is invincible and inexorable: it may, it must, die, but it
will never yield, and while it has a breath left it will try to subject
men to its God, just as the lieutenants of Prussia, these practical
idealists of Germany, would like to see the people crushed under the
spurred boot of their emperor. The faith is the same, the end but little
different, and the result, as that of faith, is slavery.
It is at the same time the triumph of the ugliest and most brutal
materialism. There is no need to demonstrate this in the case of
Germany; one would have to be blind to avoid seeing it at the present
hour. But I think it is still necessary to demonstrate it in the case
of divine idealism.
Man, like all the rest of nature, is an entirely material being. The
mind, the facility of thinking, of receiving and reflecting upon
different external and internal sensations, of remembering them when
they have passed and reproducing them by the imagination, of comparing
and distinguishing them, of abstracting determinations common to
them and thus creating general concepts, and finally of forming
ideas by grouping and combining concepts according to different
methods--intelligence, in a word, sole creator of our whole ideal world,
is a property of the animal body and especially of the quite material
organism of the brain.
We know this certainly, by the experience of all, which no fact has ever
contradicted and which any man can verify at any moment of his life. In
all animals, without excepting the wholly inferior species, we find a
certain degree of intelligence, and we see that, in the series of
species, animal intelligence develops in proportion as the organization
of a species approaches that of man, but that in man alone it attains
to that power of abstraction which properly constitutes thought.
Universal experience,[8] which is the sole origin, the source of all our
knowledge, shows us, therefore, that all intelligence is always attached
to some animal body, and that the intensity, the power, of this animal
function depends upon the relative perfection of the organism. The
latter of these results of universal experience is not applicable only
to the different animal species; we establish it likewise in men, whose
intellectual and moral power depends so clearly upon the greater or less
perfection of their organism as a race, as a nation, as a class, and as
individuals, that it is not necessary to insist upon this point.[9]
On the other hand, it is certain that no man has ever seen or can see
pure mind, detached from all material form, existing separately from
any animal body whatsoever. But if no person has seen it, how is it
that men have come to believe in its existence? The fact of this belief
is certain, and if not universal, as all the idealists pretend, at
least very general, and as such it is entirely worthy of our closest
attention, for a general belief, however foolish it may be, exercises
too potent a sway over the destiny of men to warrant us in ignoring it
or putting it aside.
The explanation of this belief, moreover, is rational enough. The
example afforded us by children and young people, and even by many men
long past the age of majority, shows us that man may use his mental
faculties for a long time before accounting to himself for the way in
which he uses them, before becoming clearly conscious of it. During
this working of the mind unconscious of itself, during this action of
innocent or believing intelligence, man, obsessed by the external
world, pushed on by that internal goad called life and its manifold
necessities, creates a quantity of imaginations, concepts, and ideas
necessarily very imperfect at first and conforming but slightly to the
reality of the things and facts which they endeavor to express. Not
having yet the consciousness of his own intelligent action, not knowing
yet that he himself has produced and continues to produce these
imaginations, these concepts, these ideas, ignoring their wholly
_subjective_--that is, human--origin, he must naturally consider them as
_objective_ beings, as real beings, wholly independent of him, existing
by themselves and in themselves.