There is no doubt that the idea of nationality has been a creative
force, making possible the fuller development of individual powers by
widening the field of individual activity, and by setting definite
ideals to large co-operating masses; but we feel with Fichte and
Mazzini that the political power of a nation is important only when the
national unit is the carrier of ideals that are of value to mankind.
Together with the positive, creative side of nationalism, there has
developed everywhere another one, which forms the basis of the passions
that are blinding the people of Europe to the high aims of humanity.
Instead of seeing in each nation one of the members of mankind that
contributes in its own way toward the advance of civilization,
an aggressive intolerance of all other units has grown up. It is
strengthened by the inadaptability of governmental machinery, which
favors national isolation.
On a larger scale the conditions are repeated now that less than a
century ago prevented the ready formation of modern nations. The
narrow-minded local interests of cities and other small political
units resisted unification or federation on account of the supposed
conflicts between their interests and ideals and those of other
units of comparable size. The governmental organization strengthened
the tendency to isolation, and the unavoidable, ever-present desire
of self-preservation of the existing order stood in the way of
amalgamation. It was only after long years of agitation and of bloody
struggle that the larger idea prevailed.
Those of us who recognize in the realization of national ideals a
definite advance that has benefited mankind cannot fail to see that the
task before us at the present time is a repetition of the process of
nationalization on a larger scale; not with a view to levelling down
all local differences, but with the avowed purpose of making them all
subserve the same end.
The federation of nations is the next necessary step in the evolution
of mankind.
It is the expansion of the fundamental idea underlying the organization
of the United States, of Switzerland, and of Germany. The weakness of
the modern peace movement lies in this, that it is not sufficiently
clear and radical in its demand, for its logical aim cannot be an
arbitration of disagreements. It must be the recognition of common aims
of at least all the nations of European descent. The time is obviously
not ripe for demanding an expansion of this idea over the productive
members of the non-European races of mankind.
Such federation of nations is not a Utopian idea, any more than
nationalism was a century ago. In fact, the whole development of
mankind shows that this condition is destined to come. In the
earliest period of social development, when human beings lived in
small, scattered groups, the unit in which community of interest was
recognized was the small horde, and every outsider was considered as
specifically distinct and as an enemy who must be killed for the sake
of self-preservation. By slow degrees the size of the horde increased
and they formed themselves into larger units. The distinction between
the members of the tribe and the foreigner was no longer considered as
a specific one, although the idea continued to prevail that it was of
foremost interest to protect the fellow-tribesman against the foreigner.
Progress has been slow, but almost steady, in the direction of
expanding the political units from hordes to tribes, from tribes to
small states, confederations, and nations. The concept of the foreigner
as a specifically distinct being has been so modified that we are
beginning to see in him a member of mankind.
Enlargement of circles of association, and equalization of rights of
distinct local communities, have been so consistently the _general_
tendency of human development, that we may look forward confidently to
its consummation.
It is obvious that the standards of ethical conduct must be quite
distinct as between those who have grasped this ideal and those who
still believe in the preservation of isolated nationality in opposition
to all others. In order to form a fair judgment of the motives of
action of the leaders of European nations at the present time, we
should bear in mind that in all countries the standards of national
ethics, as cultivated by means of national education, are opposed to
this wider view. Devotion to the nation is taught as the paramount
duty, and it is instilled into the minds of the young in such a form
that with it grows up and is perpetuated the feeling of rivalry and of
hostility against all other nations.
Conditions in Europe are intelligible only when we remember that by
education patriotism is surrounded by a halo of sanctity, and that
national self-preservation is considered the first duty.
If our public conscience is hardly strong enough to exact the faithful
performance of the terms of a treaty in which only commercial interests
are at stake, if we are restrained with some difficulty from aggression
for the sake of economic advantage, it is at least intelligible why
a government that sees the very existence of the nation endangered
should, in a conflict of duties, reluctantly decide to set the safety
of the nation for which it is responsible higher than the performance
of a treaty inherited from a previous generation.
We must acknowledge that in such a case the demands of national and
international duty are hopelessly at variance, and what line of action
is chosen depends upon the conception of responsibility and upon the
value given to the preservation of national existence.