BY HERBERT ADOLPHUS MILLER, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY, OBERLIN
COLLEGE, OHIO[25]
The mental and moral characteristics of any social group are the
product of a wide variety of complex influences of a pre-eminently
psychological nature. The suggestions that come through tradition
and history result in mental reactions that become so typical of the
group that it is popular to call them inborn and racial. The easy
assumption of this explanation hinders the more fundamental discovery
of why certain characteristics prevail. The Bohemians illustrate this
principle of the creative influence of definite ideas.
A Bohemian is a Slav. The influence of this relationship is the
broadest and most general. It has become self-conscious only
in comparatively recent times, i.e., two or three generations.
Previously there was much changing from Slav to Teuton and vice versa.
Unquestionably a very large proportion of Prussians have a considerable
infusion of Slavic blood, and many Bohemians have German ancestors. In
centres like Pilsen or Prague, where the two races have lived together
for a long time, it is absolutely impossible to tell them apart until
they begin to speak, and then the identity may be concealed by using
the other language. Within the last seventy-five years there has been a
clear recognition of the Slavic relationship which has taken the form
of conscious efforts to preserve certain Slavic characteristics, and to
join with the others in withstanding the influence and authority of the
Germans. There have been certain other Slavic characteristics that have
persisted in all the Slavic groups which will be mentioned later when
we consider their contribution to democracy.
For something over five hundred years the Bohemians have been clearly
conscious of their Bohemian nationality and much that is distinctive
of them has been developed and is still being developed in them by
this national history, and nothing of it can be understood except
in the light of this historical influence. The two most influential
forces have been John Hus, who made Bohemia Protestant a century before
Luther, and who was burned at the stake in 1415; and Comenius the
world educator, who was exiled for his connection with the Protestant
Church of Bohemian Brethren. These two national heroes planted the
seeds which differentiated the Bohemians from the rest of the Slavs in
religious freedom and respect for education. Hus also was the symbol
for the development of nationalism and the consequent revival of the
language which have occupied such a large place in the attention
of the Bohemian people. The two most characteristic expressions of
these influences are now found in Nationalism and Free-thought, and
no appreciation of the condition and purposes of the people can be
complete without reckoning with these facts.
From about 1400 for more than two hundred years Bohemia was a leader
in European culture, but the Thirty Years’ War crushed her so that
some claim that she has had no history since 1620. Count Lützow says
that “Bohemia presents the nearly unique case of a country which was
formerly almost entirely Protestant and has become almost entirely
Catholic. The popular optimistic fallacy which maintains that in
no country has the religious belief been entirely suppressed by
persecution and brute force is disproved by the fate of Bohemia.” As
a matter of fact, instead of being suppressed, it was smouldering
during the centuries and now constitutes an amazing unanimity of mind
and feeling among the nation in regard to religion. Immediately after
the Act of Tolerance in 1781 there sprang up here and there churches
which took up the old faith exactly where it had been left more than a
hundred and fifty years before. Free-thinking is in part a philosophy,
but it is more particularly a sign of national character.
In the past it has been the custom of nations to try to absorb all
within their political boundaries into the character of the governing
group, however much they may have differed in traditions and customs.
Austria not only tried to make Bohemians Catholics but Germans, and
the history of the effort ought to make clear for ever that political
science must adjust itself to the laws of human nature, and that the
way to develop the individualism of a people is to try to blot it out.
Whatever may be said about the superiority of one culture over another
it cannot be imposed by force, and the Germans have been stupidly
slow in discovering this fundamental fact. Bohemia is but a single
example of this new consciousness which is called Nationalism. The
Poles, Lithuanians, Finns, Magyars, Irish, and all the Slavic groups
are showing that there is a psychological force to be reckoned with
which military force cannot overcome. The contribution of the variety
of cultures is what will enrich the life of civilization and not the
pre-eminence of one, whatever that one may be. Some evidence of the
way in which the revival of nation spirit is taking place among the
Bohemians will show what a tremendous force this spirit is.
Count Lützow, in an address given in Prague in 1911, brings out the
present situation: “One of the most interesting facts that in Bohemia
and especially in Prague mark the period of peace at the beginning
of the nineteenth century is the revival of the national feeling and
language.... The greatest part of Bohemia, formerly almost Germanized,
has now again become thoroughly Slavic. The national language, for
a time used only by the peasantry in outlying districts, is now
freely and generally used by the educated classes in most parts of
the country. Prague itself, that had for a time acquired almost the
appearance of a German town, has now a thoroughly Slavic character. The
national literature also, which had almost ceased to exist, is in a
very flourishing state, particularly since the foundation of a national
university. At no period have so many and so valuable books been
written in the Bohemian language.”
About sixty years ago several Bohemian writers were bold enough to
write in their own language instead of German and from that time
the Bohemian spirit has grown until opposition to the overbearing
Germanism became almost a passion. Wherever the Germans were in a
majority only German public schools were provided, but wherever the
municipality had fewer Germans than Slavs German as well as Bohemian
schools were provided. To meet this discrimination Bohemians, both at
home and in America, have contributed to a remarkable degree for the
“Mother of Schools” (association) which supports Bohemian schools of
first caliber in the minority communities. There are no other Slavs
who compare with the Bohemians in the high regard for schools. As one
goes through the country he is struck by the palatial school building
even in poor peasant villages. It seems to bear a relation similar to
the prison and church in a Russian town. The inevitable result of this
universal spirit is the gradual elimination of the German language.
German had nearly vanished from the streets of Prague. One fared ill
in a restaurant if his German were good enough to sound genuine though
the waiter understood perfectly. Business men were beginning to take
pride in the fact that they could succeed without knowing any German,
and fathers who were reared with German as a mother tongue taught their
children Bohemian instead. The unifying force of this national feeling
has been going on with great rapidity in the face of the disrupting
force of eleven political parties, besides the sharp spiritual division
into Catholics and anti-Catholics.
It could not fail to be a distinct disadvantage for a people of seven
or eight million to cut itself off from the opportunities of the
environing German culture, science, and commerce, but those who saw
this most clearly deliberately assumed the cost in their struggle for
the freedom of the spirit. When we remember that prestige was on the
side of the German one sees a sacrifice approaching nobility. At the
time the Olympic games were being held in Europe and attracting the
attention of the world a far more important athletic meet was being
held in Prague. This was Slavic in its membership, though Bohemian
in its origin. More than twenty thousand persons took part, and at
one time eleven thousand men, speaking several different languages,
were doing calisthenic exercises together. With the exception of the
Poles, who would not come because the Russians were invited, there were
representatives of all the Slavic nationalities, and the keynote of
every speech was “Slavie! Slavie!” and when it was uttered the crowds
would go wild. There were a quarter of a million visitors in the city,
and illustrated reports of the exhibition went to the ends of the
Slavic world. A few weeks afterwards I saw some of them pasted on the
wall of a primitive factory in the back districts of Moscow. But the
German papers completely ignored the whole thing and no self-respecting
German could attend, though it was undoubtedly the greatest thing of
the sort ever held.
Two years ago when war was threatening between Austria and Serbia,
Bohemians who were being entrained from their garrison for mobilization
on the Serbian border, in more than one case sang the Pan-Slavic
hymn, “Hej Slované!” familiar to all Slavic nations, but forbidden
to Austrian soldiers in service. They used a popular parody in this
enthusiastic and powerful hymn, full of encouragement to the Slavs,
telling them that their language shall never perish nor shall they
“even though the number of Germans equal the number of souls in hell.”
It is said that at this time at least seventy thousand Slavs in Austria
eligible to military service quit the country.
The Germans have succeeded in making the Bohemian culture almost
identical with theirs, and it is difficult to find in the German any
traits that can be called specifically Bohemian. Only a long future
can tell whether there are actually inherent psychological differences
which can account for aggressiveness in the one and passivity in the
other. We may assume, however, that we have not had time to test
the subtle forces which work on social groups and give them a cast
of thought that seems biologically inherent. No Slavic people has
exhibited the individualistic character of the Teuton, but we have no
assurance that this Teuton habit of mind is the result of anything
except the history and the philosophy which have been appropriated
in comparatively modern times. There are two ways of explaining the
relative passivity of the Slavic mind. One is the fact that having
been for so long a subject people they have no traditions of success.
Even the Russians are ruled by a bureaucracy with which they have no
sympathy. The other is that the Bohemians and the others have retained
the democratic characteristics which are common to the Slavs. There has
been some influence from both.
One peculiarity of Bohemians both in America and Bohemia is the habit
of criticising any of their own people who acquire any eminence or
leadership in any field. One never feels free to speak with enthusiasm
about a successful Bohemian lest he invite a dash of cold water. There
seems to be universal suspicion of the motives or methods underlying
the success. If a leader were to appear he would not get followers.
Such a habit of mind can never bring anything that corresponds to
imperialistic success. Count Lützow says “that the evil seed of hatred
and distrust sown by the oppressors in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries bears evil fruit up to the present day. Bohemian peasants
even now instinctively distrust the nobles of their own race who are in
full sympathy with the national cause. This antagonism has frequently
contributed to the failure of the attempts of the Bohemians to recover
their autonomy.”
There is a great difference in an individual or a people that has been
accustomed to accomplishment. The attitude in Bohemia has been that of
pessimistic resignation. Their devotion to certain ideals and causes
is magnificent, but the inability to organize unanimously is indicated
by the eleven political parties, most of which are nationalistic and
none of which has the active co-operation of the masses. They follow
an ideal rather than a person, and the symbol of the ideal is always
a person who is dead. The look is thus backward rather than hopefully
forward. Hus is the great hero, but also Comenius, Palacký, Havlíček,
and many others of more or less remoteness are the real leaders, and
the reinstatement of national self-direction and the Bohemian language
are the ideal objects.
In Bohemia these result in an impracticalness which magnifies the
æsthetic even to sentimentality. They will talk as though art were
the end of life. For many the æsthetic life consists of sitting in
restaurants night after night listening to the band and talking over
their beer. In spite of this industry has made great progress in
Bohemia, and when they come to this country they forget their objection
to the practical. There are probably no other immigrants in America
who make such direct efforts to own their own homes as the Bohemians.
At a gathering of instructors of the University of Prague to organize
a sociological institute, I was asked to tell some of the things we
do here. I tried to show how we combine theory with practice and
emphasized my own interest which is theoretical, but they unanimously
said that our methods were too practical to be used by them.
A comparison of Poles and Bohemians who belong to the same race shows
the influence of culture on the Bohemian. In 1900 the percentage of
illiterates among the Bohemians entering the United States was 3. and
of Poles 31.6. The Poles are as strongly the Catholic as the Bohemians
are Free-thinkers.
In Austria there are fourteen times as many cases of litigation in the
courts among the Poles as among the Bohemians. A Bohemian in Chicago
who does a large mail order business among all Slavs says: “We will not
do business with the Poles at all because they will not pay. To the
Serbians we send everything C.O.D., but the Croatians, Ruthenians, and
the rest we trust.”
The family life is an important sign of the morality of a people, and
we find among the Bohemians many interesting qualities. The following
statement in “Hull House Papers” derived from a study of Bohemians
says: “The family life is affectionate, and it is the prevailing custom
among the working class to give all the wages to the mother.” I have
often noticed that in families the income is naturally estimated as the
total earnings of husband and children and that the mother gives even
to the larger children who are earning good wages what money they need,
and always with cheerfulness and perfect understanding. The attachment
for the home is very strong, and they take pride in large families
which stick together. It is probable that ownership of the home works
both ways in this matter, having the home integrates the family and
having the family unity makes it desirable to own a home.
In sex morality we must remember that the Bohemians are European and
not American, but on the streets of Prague there is less public display
of immorality than in Chicago. Modesty is observed as an important
virtue. The Bohemians, like all other people, have prejudices that make
it difficult for them to see clearly values not measured by their own
standard, but there can be no question but that their standard measures
up well with any people in Europe. The important thing to civilization
is whether they have any peculiar traits of mind or character that
will be a contribution to progress. I think that the Bohemians have
this in common with the other Slavs to a very marked degree and in a
direction which has hitherto been entirely unrecognized, and this is
the contribution to democracy.
However else the Germans may justify the present war, they sincerely
believe that on their success hangs the salvation of civilization from
the barbarism of the half-civilized Slav. Professors Eucken and Haeckel
have voiced a widespread indignation that England could so far forget
her ideals as to join with Russia against the forces of enlightenment.
Americans, even those whose sympathies are hostile to Germans, dread
success of the Russians. The socialists who are opposed to all war feel
convinced that Russia is a menace to all their plans. In fact they
have tacitly admitted more than once that it might be necessary to
resist encroachments of Russia by force. It is my contention that the
Slavic people, of whom the Russians are the largest group, have more
to contribute to what the world needs next than any other people, and
that all that is best in socialism will find its fruition among them as
nowhere else.
A learned Bohemian friend, in reply to my letter to Bohemia, in which I
spoke of the political progress America was making, said that it could
but fill the heart of a Bohemian “with a feeling of sad resignation”;
but he adds, “I am not pessimistic enough to give up all hope that
Providence may have yet some good things in store for the Slav. What
keeps me up is a certain hazy impression that human development may
sometime be in want of a new formula, and then our time may come. I
conceive ourselves under the sway of the German watchword which spells
Force; and as watchwords, like everything else human, come and go,
perhaps the Slavs may sometime be called on to introduce another, which
I should like to see spelled Charity.”
There is no literature in the world which has contributed so much
toward such a sentiment as that of the Slavs. Tolstoy is the great
example, and his very greatness enabled him to propose a program even
beyond present imagination, but many other writers, some of whom have
been translated and some not, have expressed the same ideal of needed
radical reform. We must not make the mistake of thinking these writers
the originators of their doctrines. A popular prophet expresses the
heart of the people, and is a product of their ideals. The great vogue
of these writers is among their own people. The government of Russia is
hostile to Tolstoy, but it could not resist the demands of the students
that an heroic statue of this radical be placed in the great government
technical school.
The ultimate goal of society is democracy and, strange as it may sound,
the Slav has more to contribute to this end than anyone else. Russia,
whose name is the synonym of despotism, is already in reality the most
democratic country in the world. Democracy means the opportunity for
the individual to express himself to the utmost, to have his expression
count according to its value, and if he does not predominate to yield
gracefully to the expression that does prevail. This habit of mind
cannot be obtained without practice, and up to the present time in the
world’s history would not have been as efficient as the leadership of
individuals who, right or wrong, obtained results. Now by means of
rapid communication and a clearer understanding of social purposes the
method of democracy can be applied with increasing efficiency. Nurture
in democratic practice is the contribution the Slavs will make, and we
cannot realize how rich this will be.
The despotism of Russia is no more an expression of the real Russian
people than Tammany Hall is an expression of American democracy, and
the influence of both institutions on national character has been
practically nothing. Despotisms come and go, but the traditions and
customs of the people persist. It was formerly thought that ideals were
imposed from above, but now we are becoming pretty thoroughly convinced
that this is not the case. Imitation is horizontal between people of
the same class and not vertical between classes. Polish nobles had
glass windows for years, but it did not occur to the peasants to have
them until the idea was brought back from America by people of their
own sort. And so influences and habits may go on for centuries upon
centuries without being affected by a different culture. This fortunate
fact has enabled us to preserve what would have been eliminated by the
contemporary values and customs that were not valuable for the time.
Any observant traveler entering Russia, after he gets over the first
fear which everyone seems to feel, will gradually be impressed with
the contrast to the Germans and Austrians whom he has just left. There
he was never addressed without his full title of Herr Professor, Herr
Journalist, or whatever he might claim for his distinction. Here his
self-esteem suffers a shock, for, in the language of the country, he
becomes simply “Mister.” This universal custom, unimportant in itself,
is significant of a national habit of mind. Men in high places, as
heads of universities, are addressed by their colleagues by their first
names. In the familiar Russian and Polish novel we find nobles and
military leaders regularly with the simple title Pan (Mr.), which is
a term of respect but not of distinction. In fact the attitude of the
noble and the peasant toward each other is not that of superiority and
servility, but as elder and younger brother. The name Little Father
which is applied to the Czar expresses the attitude of familiarity
rather than of awe. Compare this with the worship of uniform in
Germany, where a policeman will not answer your question unless you
salute him and an omitted title is an insult. In Petrograd during
student riots it is not an uncommon thing for the students to kick
the shins of the police and no one thinks of it as lèse majesté. The
Russian officer and soldier are more nearly comrades than in any other
army in the world.
These habits have not been assumed deliberately, but are the product
of underlying institutions out of which they have grown naturally.
At least fifty million people in Greater Russia and Siberia live in
Mirs or Communes. In these from time immemorial they have practiced
a degree of co-operation and local self-government which has never
been equalled by deliberate action in the most enlightened nations,
and which the most despotic government, not being able to overthrow,
has recently incorporated into its governmental method. In the Mir
the land which is owned in common is regularly reallotted among the
householders according to their working capacities and needs. The Mir
elects its own executive and may undertake all kinds of work of public
utility. Occasionally a woman is elected as executive, and when the
man representing the household is away or dead the woman votes and
takes part in the assembly. The Mirs are united into larger bodies
with similar jurisdiction. The interesting thing about it is that it
prevails so widely and among people between whom there has not been the
slightest possibility of intercommunication. The promise of the Mir is
not communism, but a habit of mind that can be applied in more general
and complex affairs.
Complaint has more or less justly been made that the Slav is deficient
in political leadership except in the smallest units. This can have
been true in the past while holding for a future under quite different
conditions. Ease of communication has enlarged social units so that
common ideas may result in common action over wide areas as easily as
in a common room. At any rate the Slavs have succeeded in carrying
over their custom in a very remarkable manner. The _artel_, which is a
co-operative productive organization, embraces most diverse enterprises
throughout Russia, and is efficient in a manner only dreamed of
elsewhere. Tiffany’s finest silver enamel is mostly made by peasant
_artels_ in Moscow. In one small factory where most of the men were
away getting in their harvests, the rest were making beautiful inlaid
Easter eggs, and a special order of ice cream dishes worth a hundred
dollars apiece, yet these work-owners were so untouched by modern
customs and the civilization for which they were producing that they
ate their dinner from a common dish with wooden spoons. The porters
at the railroad stations are _artels_ governed by their own rules and
sharing the proceeds. Many banks and large enterprises are carried
on in the same way. One of the largest restaurants in Petrograd is
owned by the men who do the work. Fishing is also co-operative in
its methods. Undertakings of this sort could not possibly be carried
through so generally and so successfully if it were not for the great
background of experience in which co-operation and acquiescence to the
will of the people is accepted as a matter of course.
We recognize that one of the greatest problems of our time is that
of class consciousness between labor and capital, and economists
have suggested co-operation as the only cure for the deadlock that
threatens, but it has not succeeded where tried. The Russians have
succeeded without being conscious that they were doing any but the
most natural thing. For people who have been forbidden so much that is
thought to be essential to freedom, it is nothing short of remarkable,
that in the recent years of industrial progress and increasing
complexity, they should have been able to adapt their democracy to
fit the needs. Nowhere are labor unions formed more easily, and while
meager in their activities, as compared to American or English, they
have coherence.
The church has developed in line with the characteristics of the
people. Although the Orthodox Church is magnificent in its equipment,
and its priests most richly caparisoned, yet it offers a marked
contrast to the aristocratic system of the Roman Catholic Church. The
Russian most devoutly takes off his hat in passing a church or holy
image, but he keeps it on when passing the priest, and he kisses the
priest on the cheek rather than the hand.
Among other Slavs there is the same widespread prevalence of democratic
customs. In Serbia the Mir is found in much the same form as in Russia,
and in Poland in numerous instances the Zadruga is a community of from
ten to sixty or more living in one house and settling important matters
by vote. The head of the Zadruga is generally the oldest man, but this
is not necessary, and not infrequently a woman is head. In the days of
its independence the Polish king was always elected. The suffrage was
restricted to the nobles, and much turbulence prevailed at the time of
election, but the people were very jealous of the privilege.
Of all the Slavs the Bohemians have come most under German influence
and it has often been said that the assimilation is all in the
direction of the German. In many characteristics this is true, but
some of the traditional habits of mind have clearly been preserved.
They have not lost these by being transferred to America and are able
to carry on certain forms of association with phenomenal success. In
Chicago they have 104 Building and Loan Associations incorporated
under the laws of Illinois. All are prosperous, only one has ever
failed. Each has only one paid officer, a secretary who receives from
five to ten dollars a week. One association has assets of $600,000,
and all of them aggregate about $14,000,000 and 20,000 members. They
also have numerous benevolent lodges with an aggregate membership of
over 100,000 in the United States, which manage insurance systems on
a most democratic and safe basis. This management in almost all cases
includes women in exact equality. The same thing is true of the Sokol
or gymnastic society which is organized in all Slavic countries. In the
numerous deliberative meetings of Bohemians that I have attended the
women have shown themselves quite the equal of the men in debate.
The ultimate democracy must include universal suffrage, which we see
has its roots in the Slavic institutions. The Bohemians have the
arguments of the Germans about the place of women, but their practice
is more subtly democratic than they are aware of. Until it was confused
with the prohibition question Bohemians have consistently advocated
equal suffrage, before it became generally popular. The Germans have as
consistently opposed it.
Whatever the outcome of the war the Slavs will inevitably become an
increasing influence in the world’s progress because of their higher
birth rate and because they possess the richest natural resources in
the world. It is perhaps an occasion for gratitude that in the midst of
the apparently insoluble problems about the exploitation of natural
resources and labor conflicts, a people that has been nurturing in what
we have called barbarism the traits most desirable for dealing with
such problems, is now about to come upon the stage.
To be sure, most of the Slavic world is permeated by ignorance and
dominated by bureaucracy, but education is only a generation deep, and
political reorganization is the most rapid and remarkable fact of our
era. The Bohemians have shown us that under modern conditions these
traits are not lost. Civilization may have a temporary setback, but it
cannot be as great as that now arising from militarism, but in the end
the Slav will contribute to the social fabric that for which it is now
peculiarly ready. In the words of an ancient writer we may say that the
stone which the builder rejected is become the head of the corner.