General View of Positivism — Chapter 3 The Action Of Positivism Upon The Working Classes Part 1

[Positivism will not for the present recommend itself to the governing classes, so much as to the People] Positivism, whether looked at as a philosophical system or as an instrument of social renovation, cannot count upon much support from any of the classes, whether in Church or State, by whom the government of mankind has hitherto been conducted.

There will be isolated exceptions of great value, and these will soon become more numerous: but the prejudices and passions of these classes will present serious obstacles to the work of moral and mental reorganization which constitutes the second phase of the great Western revolution.

Their faulty education and their repugnance to system prejudice them against a philosophy which subordinates specialities to general principles.

Their aristocratic instincts make it very difficult for them to recognize the supremacy of Social Feeling; that doctrine which lies at the root of social regeneration, as conceived by Positivism.

That no support can be expected from the classes who were in the ascendant before the Revolution, is of course obvious; and we shall probably meet with opposition, quite as real though more carefully concealed, from the middle classes, to whom that revolution transferred the authority and social influence which they had long been coveting.

Their thoughts are entirely engrossed with the acquisition of power; and they concern themselves but little with the mode in which it is used, or the objects to which it is directed.

They were quite convinced that the Revolution had found a satisfactory issue in the parliamentary system instituted during the recent period of political oscillation.

They will long continue to regret that stationary period, because it was peculiarly favourable to their restless ambition.

A movement tending to the complete regeneration of society is almost as much dreaded now by the middle classes as it was formerly by the higher.

And both would at all events agree in prolonging the system of theological hypocrisy, as far as republican institutions admitted of it.

That policy is now the only means by which retrogression is still possible.

Ignoble as it is, there are two motives for adopting it; it secures respect and submission on the part of the masses, and it imposes no unpleasant duties on their governors.

All their critical and metaphysical prejudices indispose them to terminate the state of spiritual anarchy which is the greatest obstacle to social regeneration: while at the same time their ambition dreads the establishment of a new moral authority, the restrictive influence of which would of course press most heavily upon themselves.

In the eighteenth century, men of rank, and even kings, accepted the purely negative philosophy that was then in vogue; it removed many obstacles, it was an easy path to reputation, and it imposed no great sacrifice.

But we can hardly hope from this precedent that the wealthy and literary classes of our own time will be equally willing to accept Positive philosophy; the avowed purpose of which is to discipline our intellectual powers, in order to reorganize our modes of life.

The avowal of such a purpose is quite sufficient to prevent Positivism from gaining the sympathies of any one of the governing classes.

The classes to which it must appeal are those who have been left untrained in the present worthless methods of instruction by words and entities, who are animated with strong social instincts, and who consequently have the largest stock of good sense and good feeling.

In a word it is among the Working Classes that the new philosophers will find their most energetic allies.

They are the two extreme terms in the social series as finally constituted; and it is only through their combined action that social regeneration can become a practical possibility.

Notwithstanding their difference of position, a difference which indeed is more apparent than real, there are strong affinities between them, both morally and intellectually.

Both have the same sense of the real, the same preference for the useful, and the same tendency to subordinate special points to general principles.

Morally they resemble each other in generosity of feeling, in wise unconcern for material prospects, and in indifference to worldly grandeur.

This at least will be the case as soon as philosophers in the true sense of that word have mixed sufficiently with the nobler members of the working classes to raise their own character to its proper level.

When the sympathies which unite them upon these essential points have had time to show themselves, it will be felt that the philosopher is, under certain aspects, a member of the working class fully trained; while the working man is in many respects a philosopher without the training.

Both too will look with similar feelings upon the intermediate or capitalist class.

As that class is necessarily the possessor of material power, the pecuniary existence of both will as a rule be independent upon it.

[The working man who accepts his position is favourably situated for the reception of comprehensive principles and generous sympathies] These affinities follow as a natural result from their respective position and functions.

The reason of their not having been recognized more distinctly is, that at present we have nothing that can be called a philosophic class, or at least it is only represented by a few isolated types.

Workmen worthy of their position are happily far less rare; but hitherto it is only in France, or rather in Paris, that they have shown themselves in their true light, as men emancipated from chimerical beliefs, and careless of the empty prestige of social position.

It is, then, only in Paris that the truth of the preceding remarks can be fully verified.

The occupations of working men are evidently far more conducive to philosophical views than those of the middle classes; since they are not so absorbing, as to prevent continuous thought, even during the hours of labour.

And besides having more time for thinking, they have a moral advantage in the absence of any responsibility when their work is over.

The workman is preserved by his position from the schemes of aggrandisement, which are constantly harassing the capitalist.

Their difference in this respect causes a corresponding difference in their modes of thought; the one cares more for general principles, the other more for details.

To a sensible workman, the system of dispersive speciality now so much in vogue shows itself in its true light.

He sees it, that is, to be brutalizing, because it would condemn his intellect to the most paltry mode of culture, so much so that it will never be accepted in France, in spite of the irrational endeavours of our Anglo-maniac economists.

To the capitalist, on the contrary, and even to the man of science, that system, however rigidly and consistently carried out, will seem far less degrading; or rather it will be looked upon as most desirable, unless his education has been such as to counteract these tendencies, and to give him the desire and the ability for abstract and general thought.

Morally, the contrast between the position of the workman and the capitalist is even more striking.

Proud as most men are of worldly success, the degree of moral or mental excellence implied in the acquisition of wealth or power, even when the means used have been strictly legitimate, is hardly such as to justify that pride.

Looking at intrinsic qualities rather than at visible results, it is obvious that practical success, whether in industry or in war, depends far more on character than on intellect or affection.

The principal condition for it is the combination of a certain amount of energy with great caution, and a fair share of perseverance.

When a man has these qualities, mediocrity of intellect and moral deficiency will not prevent his taking advantage of favourable chances; chance being usually a very important element in worldly success.

Indeed it would hardly be an exaggeration to say that poverty of thought and feeling has often something to do with forming and maintaining the disposition requisite for the purpose.

Vigorous exertion of the active powers is more frequently induced by the personal propensities of avarice, ambition, or vanity, than by the higher instincts.

Superiority of position, when legitimately obtained, deserves respect; but the philosopher, like the religionist, and with still better grounds, refuses to regard it as a proof of moral superiority, a conclusion which would be wholly at variance with the true theory of human nature.

The life of the workman, on the other hand, is far more favourable to the development of the nobler instincts.

In practical qualities he is usually not wanting, except in caution, a deficiency which makes his energy and perseverance less useful to himself, though fully available for society.

But it is in the exercise of the higher feelings that the moral superiority of the working class is most observable.

When our habits and opinions have been brought under the influence of systematic principles, the true character of this class, which forms the basis of modern society, will become more distinct; and we shall see that home affections are naturally stronger with them than with the middle classes, who are too much engrossed with personal interests for the full enjoyment of domestic ties.

Still more evident is their superiority in social feelings strictly so called, for these with them are called into daily exercise from earliest childhood.

Here it is that we find the highest and most genuine types of friendship, and this even amongst those who are placed in a dependent position, aggravated often by the aristocratic prejudices of those above them, and whom we might imagine on that account condemned to a lower moral standard.

We find sincere and simple respect for superiors, untainted by servility, not vitiated by the pride of learning, not disturbed by the jealousies of competition.

Their personal experience of the miseries of life is a constant stimulus to the nobler sympathies.

In no class is there so strong an incentive to social feeling, at least to the feeling of Solidarity between contemporaries; for all are conscious of the support that they derive from union, support which is not at all incompatible with strong individuality of character.

The sense of Continuity with the past has not, it is true, been sufficiently developed; but this is a want which can only be supplied by systematic culture.

It will hardly be disputed that there are more remarkable instances of prompt and unostentatious self-sacrifice at the call of a great public necessity in this class than in any other.

Note, too, that in the utter absence of any systematic education, all these moral excellences must be looked upon as inherent in the class.

It is impossible to attribute them to theological influence, now that they have so entirely shaken off the old faith.

The type I have described would be generally considered imaginary; and at present it is only in Paris that it can be fully realized.

But the fact of its existence in the centre of Western Europe is enough for all rational observers.

A type so fully in accordance with what we know of human nature cannot fail ultimately to spread everywhere, especially when these spontaneous tendencies are placed under the systematic guidance of Positivism.

[This the Convention felt;

but they encouraged the People to seek political supremacy, for which they are not fit] These remarks will prepare us to appreciate the wise and generous instincts of the Convention in looking to the Proletariate as the mainspring of its policy; and this is not merely on account of the incidental danger of foreign invasion, but in dealing with the larger question of social regeneration, which it pursued so ardently, though in such ignorance of its true principles.

Owing, however, to the want of a satisfactory system, and the disorder produced by the metaphysical theories of the time, the spirit in which this alliance with the people was framed was incompatible with the real object in view.

It was considered that government ought as a rule to be in the hands of the people.

Now under the special circumstances of the time popular government was undoubtedly very useful.

The existence of the republic depended almost entirely upon the proletariate, the only class that stood unshaken and true to its principles.

But in the absolute spirit of the received political theories, this state of things was regarded as normal, a view which is incompatible with the most important conditions of modern society.

It is of course always right for the people to assist government in carrying out the law, even to the extent of physical force, should the case require it.

Interference of this subordinate kind, whether in foreign or internal questions, so far from leading to anarchy, is obviously a guarantee for order which ought to exist in every properly constituted society.

Indeed in this respect our habits in France are still very defective; men are too often content to remain mere lookers on, while the police to whom they owe their daily protection is doing its duty.

But for the people to take a direct part in government, and to have the final decision of political measures, is a state of things which in modern society is only adapted to times of revolution.

To recognize it as final would lead at once to anarchy, were it not so utterly impossible to realize.

[It is only in exceptional cases that the People can be really ‘sovereign’] Positivism rejects the metaphysical doctrine of the Sovereignty of the people.

But it appropriates all that is really sound in the doctrine, and this with reference not merely to exceptional cases but to the normal state; while at the same time it guards against the danger involved in its application as an absolute truth.

In the hands of the revolutionary party the doctrine is generally used to justify the right of insurrection.

Now in Positive Polity, this right is looked upon as an ultimate resource, with which no society should allow itself to dispense.

Absolute submission, which is too strongly inculcated by modern Catholicism, would expose us to the danger of tyranny.

Insurrection may be regarded, scientifically, as a sort of reparative crisis, of which societies stand in more need than individuals in accordance with the well-known biological law, that the higher and the more complicated the organism, the more frequent and also the more dangerous is the pathological state.

Therefore, the fear that Positivism, when generally accepted, will encourage passive obedience, is perfectly groundless; although it is certainly not favourable to the pure revolutionary spirit, which would fain take the disease for the normal type of health.

Its whole character is so essentially relative, that it finds no difficulty in accepting subordination as the rule, and yet allowing for exceptional cases of revolt; a course by which good taste and human dignity are alike satisfied.

Positivism looks upon insurrection as a dangerous remedy that should be reserved for extreme cases; but it would never scruple to sanction and even to encourage it when it is really indispensable.

This is quite compatible with refusing, as a rule, to submit the decision of political questions and the choice of rulers to judges who are obviously incompetent; and who, under the influence of Positivism, will of their own free will abdicate rights which are subversive of order.

[The truth involved in the expression is that the well-being of the people should be the one great object of government] The metaphysical doctrine of the Sovereignty of the people, contains, however, a truth of permanent value, though in a very confused form.

This truth Positivism separates very distinctly from its dangerous alloy, yet without weakening, on the contrary, with the effect of enforcing, its social import.

There are two distinct conceptions in this doctrine, which have hitherto been confounded; a political conception applicable to certain special cases; a moral conception applicable to all.

In the first place the name of the whole body politic ought to be invoked in the announcement of any special measure, of which the motives are sufficiently intelligible, and which directly concern the practical interests of the whole community.

Under this head would be included decisions of law courts, declarations of war, etc. When society has reached the Positive state, and the sense of universal solidarity is more generally diffused, there will be even more significance and dignity in such expressions than there is now, because the name invoked will no longer be that of a special nation, but that of Humanity as a whole.

It would be absurd, however, to extend this practice to those still more numerous cases where the people is incompetent to express any opinion, and has merely to adopt the opinion of superior officers who have obtained its confidence.

This may be owing either to the difficulty of the question or to the fact of its application being indirect or limited.

Such, for instance, would be enactments, very often of great importance, which deal with scientific principles; or again most questions relating to special professions or branches of industry.

In all these cases popular good sense would, under Positivist influence, easily be kept clear from political illusions.

It is only under the stimulus of metaphysical pride that such illusions become dangerous; and the untaught masses have but little experience of this feeling.

There is, however, another truth implied in the expression, Sovereignity of the people.

It implies that it is the first of duties to concentrate all the efforts of society upon the common good.

And in this there is a more direct reference to the working class than to any other; first, on account of their immense numerical superiority, and, secondly, because the difficulties by which their life is surrounded require special interference to a degree which for other classes would be unnecessary.

From this point of view it is a principle which all true republicans may accept.

It is, in fact, identical with what we have laid down as the universal basis of morality, the direct and permanent preponderance of social feeling over all personal interests.

Not merely, then, is it incorporated by Positivism, but, as was shown in the first chapter, it forms the primary principle of the system, even under the intellectual aspect.

Since the decline of Catholicism the metaphysical spirit has been provisionally the guardian of this great social precept.

Positivism now finally appropriates it, and purifies it for the future from all taint of anarchy.

Revolutionists, as we should expect from their characteristic dislike to the separation of the two powers, had treated the question politically.

Positivism avoids all danger by shifting it to the region of morality.

I shall show presently that this very salutary change, so far from weakening the force of the principle, increases its permanent value, and at the same time removes the deceptive and subversive tendencies which are always involved in the metaphysical mode of regarding it.

[The People’s function is to assist the spiritual power in modifying the action of government] What then, it will be asked, is the part assigned to the Proletariate in the final constitution of society?

This similarity of position which I pointed out between themselves and the philosophic class suggests the answer.

They will be of the most essential service to the spiritual power in each of its three social functions, judgment, counsel, and even education.

All the intellectual and moral qualities that we have just indicated in this class concur in fitting them for this service.

If we except the philosophic body, which is the recognized organ of general principles, there is no class which is so habitually inclined to take comprehensive views of any subject.

Their superiority in Social Feeling is still more obvious.

In this even the best philosophers are rarely their equals; and it would be a most beneficial corrective of their tendency to over-abstraction to come into daily contact with the noble and spontaneous instincts of the people.

The working class, then, is better qualified than any other for understanding, and still more for sympathizing with the highest truths of morality, though it may not be able to give them a systematic form.

And, as we have seen, it is in social morality, the most important and the highest of the three branches of Ethics, that their superiority is most observable.

Besides, independently of their intrinsic merits, whether intellectual or moral, the necessities of their daily life serve to impress them with respect for the great rules of morality, which in most cases were framed for their own protection.

To secure the application of these rules in daily life is a function of the spiritual power in the performance of which they will meet with but slight assistance from the middle classes.

It is with them that temporal power naturally resides, and it is their misuse of power that has to be controlled and set right.

The working classes are the chief sufferers from the selfishness and domineering of men of wealth and power.

For this reason they are the likeliest to come forward in defence of public morality.

And they will be all the more disposed to give it their hearty support if they have nothing to do directly with political administration.

Habitual participation in temporal power, to say nothing of its unsettling influence, would lead them away from the best remedy for their sufferings of which the constitution of society admits.

Popular sagacity will soon detect the utter hollowness of the off-hand solutions that are now being obtruded upon us.

The people will rapidly become convinced that the surest method of satisfying all legitimate claims lies in the moral agencies which Positivism offers, though it appears to them at the same time to abdicate political power which either yields them nothing or results in anarchy.

So natural is this tendency of the people to rally round the spiritual power in defence of morality, that we find it to have been the case even in mediaeval times.

Indeed this it is which explains the sympathies which Catholicism still retains, notwithstanding its general decline, in the countries where Protestantism has failed to establish itself.

Superficial observers often mistake these sympathies for evidence of sincere attachment to the old creeds, though in point of fact they are more thoroughly undermined in those countries than anywhere else.

It is an historical error which will, however, soon be corrected by the reception which these nations, so wrongly imagined to be in a backward stage of political development, will give to Positivism.

For they will soon see its superiority to Catholicism in satisfying the primary necessity with which their social instincts are so justly preoccupied.

In the Middle Ages, however, the relations between the working classes and the priesthood were hampered by the institution of serfage, which was not wholly abolished until Catholicism had begun to decline.

In fact a careful study of history will show that one of the principal causes of its decline was the want of popular support.

The mediaeval church was a noble, but premature attempt.

Disbelief in its doctrines, and also retrograde tendencies in its directors, had virtually destroyed it, before the Proletariate had attained sufficient social importance to support it successfully, supposing it could have deserved their support.

But we are now sufficiently advanced for the perfect realization of the Catholic ideal in Positivism.

And the principal means of realizing it will be the formation of an alliance between philosophers and the working classes, for which both are alike prepared by the negative and positive progress of the last five centuries.

[Their combined efforts result in the formation of Public Opinion] The direct object of their combined action will be to set in motion the force of Public Opinion.

All views of the future condition of society, the views of practical men as well as of philosophic thinkers, agree in the belief that the principal feature of the state to which we are tending, will be the increased influence which Public Opinion is destined to exercise.

It is in this beneficial influence that we shall find the surest guarantee for morality; for domestic and even for personal morality, as well as for social.

For as the whole tendency of Positivism is to induce every one to live as far as possible without concealment, the public will be intrusted with a strong check upon the life of the individual.

Now that all theological illusions have become so entirely obsolete, the need of such a check is greater than it was before.

It compensates for the insufficiency of natural goodness which we find in most men, however wisely their education has been conducted.

Except the noblest of joys, that which springs from social sympathy when called into constant exercise, there is no reward for doing right so satisfactory as the approval of our fellow-beings.

Even under theological systems it has been one of our strongest aspirations to live esteemed in the memory of others.

And still more prominence will be given to this noble form of ambition under Positivism, because it is the only way left us of satisfying the desire which all men feel of prolonging their life into the Future.

And the increased force of Public Opinion will correspond to the increased necessity for it.

The peculiar reality of Positive doctrine and its constant conformity with facts facilitate the recognition of its principles, and remove all obscurity in their application.

They are not to be evaded by subterfuges like those to which metaphysical and theological principles, from their vague and absolute character, have been always liable.

Again, the primary principle of Positivism, which is to judge every question by the standard of social interests, is in itself a direct appeal to Public Opinion; since the public is naturally the judge of the good or bad effect of action upon the common welfare.

Under theological and metaphysical systems no appeal of this sort was recognized; because the objects upheld as the highest aims of life were purely personal.