General View of Positivism — Chapter 3 The Action Of Positivism Upon The Working Classes Part 2

In political questions the application of our principle is still more obvious.

For political morality Public Opinion is almost our only guarantee.

We feel its force even now in spite of the intellectual anarchy in which we live.

Neutralized as it is in most cases by the wide divergences of men’s convictions, yet it shows itself on the occasion of any great public excitement.

Indeed, we feel it to our cost sometimes when the popular mind has taken a wrong direction; government in such cases being very seldom able to offer adequate resistance.

These cases may convince us how irresistible this power will prove when used legitimately, and when it is formed by systematic accordance in general principles instead of by a precarious and momentary coincidence of feeling.

And here we see more clearly than ever how impossible it is to effect any permanent reconstruction of the institutions of society, without a previous reorganization of opinion and of life.

The spiritual basis is necessary not merely to determine the character of the temporal reconstruction, but to supply the principal motive force by which the work is to be carried out.

Intellectual and moral harmony will gradually be restored, and under its influence the new political system will by degrees arise.

Social improvements of the highest importance may therefore be realized long before the work of spiritual reorganization is completed.

We find in mediaeval history that Catholicism exercised a powerful influence on society during its emergence from barbarism, before its own internal constitution had advanced far.

And this will be the case to a still greater degree with the regeneration which is now in progress.

[Public opinion involves, (1) principles of social conduct, (2) their acceptance by society at large, (3) an organ through which to enunciate them] Having defined the sphere within which Public Opinion should operate, we shall find little difficulty in determining the conditions requisite for its proper organization.

These are, first, the establishment of fixed principles of social action; secondly, their adoption by the public, and its consent to their application in special cases; and, lastly, a recognized organ to lay down the principles, and to apply them to the conduct of daily life.

Obvious as these three conditions appear, they are still so little understood, that it will be well to explain each of them somewhat more fully.

The first condition, that of laying down fixed principles, is, in fact, the extension to social questions of that separation between theory and practice, which in subjects of less importance is universally recognized.

This is the aspect in which the superiority of the new spiritual system to the old is most perceptible.

The principles of moral and political conduct that were accepted in the Middle Ages were little better than empirical, and owed their stability entirely to the sanction of religion.

In this respect, indeed, the superiority of Catholicism to the systems which preceded it, consisted merely in the fact of separating its precepts from the special application of them.

By making its precepts the distinct object of preliminary study, it secured them against the bias of human passions.

Yet important as this separation was, the system was so defective intellectually, that the successful application of its principles depended simply on the good sense of the teachers; for the principles in themselves were as vague and as absolute as the creeds from which they were derived.

The influence exercised by Catholicism was due to its indirect action upon social feeling in the only mode then possible.

But the claims with which Positivism presents itself are far more satisfactory.

It is based on a complete synthesis; one which embraces, not the outer world only, but the inner world of human nature.

This, while in no way detracting from the practical value of social principles, give them the imposing weight of theoretical truth; and ensures their stability and coherence, by connecting them with the whole series of laws on which the life of man and of society depend.

For these laws will corroborate even those which are not immediately deduced from them.

By connecting all our rules of action with the fundamental conception of social duty, we render their interpretation in each special case clear and consistent, and we secure it against the sophisms of passion.

Principles such as these, based on reason, and rendering our conduct independent of the impulses of the moment, are the only means of sustaining the vigour of Social Feeling, and at the same time of saving us from the errors to which its unguided suggestions so often lead.

Direct and constant culture of Social Feeling in public as well as in private life is no doubt the first condition of morality.

But the natural strength of Self-love is such that something besides this is required to control it.

The course of conduct must be traced beforehand in all important cases by the aid of demonstrable principles, adopted at first upon trust, and afterwards from conviction.

There is no art whatever in which, however ardent and sincere our desire to succeed, we can dispense with knowledge of the nature and conditions of the object aimed at.

Moral and political conduct is assuredly not exempt from such an obligation, although we are more influenced in this case by the direct promptings of feeling than in any other of the arts of life.

It has been shown only too clearly by many striking instances how far Social Feeling may lead us astray when it is not directed by right principles.

It was for want of fixed convictions that the noble sympathies entertained by the French nation for the rest of Europe at the outset of the Revolution so soon degenerated into forcible oppression, when her retrograde leader began his seductive appeal to selfish passions.

Inverse cases are still more common; and they illustrate the connexion of feeling and opinion as clearly as the others.

A false social doctrine has often favoured the natural ascendency of Self-love by giving a perverted conception of public well-being.

This has been too plainly exemplified in our own time by the deplorable influence which Malthus’s sophistical theory of population obtained in England.

This mischievous error met with very little acceptance in the rest of Europe, and it has been already refuted by the nobler thinkers of his own country; but it still gives the show of scientific sanction to the criminal antipathy of the governing classes in Great Britain to all effectual measures of reform.

Next to a system of principles, the most important condition for the exercise of Public Opinion is the existence of a strong body of supporters sufficient to make the weight of these principles felt.

Now it was here that Catholicism proved so weak; and therefore, even had its doctrine been less perishable, its decline was unavoidable.

But the defect is amply supplied in the new spiritual order, which, as I have before shown, will receive the influential support of the working classes.

And the need of such assistance is as certain as the readiness with which it will be yielded.

For though the intrinsic efficacy of Positive teaching is far greater than that of any doctrine which is not susceptible of demonstration, yet the convictions it inspires cannot be expected to dispense with the aid of vigorous popular support.

Human nature is imperfectly organized; and the influence which Reason exercises over it is not by any means so great as this supposition would imply.

Even Social Feeling, though its influence is far greater than that of Reason, would not in general be sufficient for the right guidance of practical life, if Public Opinion were not constantly at hand to support the good inclinations of individuals.

The arduous struggle of Social Feeling against Self-love requires the constant assertion of true principles to remove uncertainty as to the proper course of action in each case.

But it requires also something more.

The strong reaction of All upon Each is needed, whether to control selfishness or to stimulate sympathy.

The tendency of our poor and weak nature to give way to the lower propensities is so great that, but for this universal co-operation, Feeling and Reason would be almost inadequate to their task.

In the working class we find the requisite conditions.

They will, as we have seen, form the principal source of opinion, not merely from their numerical superiority, but also from their intellectual and moral qualities, as well as from the influence directly due to their social position.

Thus it is that Positivism views the great problem of human life, and shows us for the first time that the bases of a solution already exist in the very structure of the social organism.

[Working men’s clubs] Working men, whether as individuals or, what is still more important, collectively, are now at liberty to criticize all the details, and even the general principles, of the social system under which they live; affecting, as it necessarily does, themselves more nearly than any other class.

The remarkable eagerness lately shown by our people to form clubs, though there was no special motive for it, and no very marked enthusiasm, was a proof that the checks which had previously prevented this tendency from showing itself were quite unsuited to our times.

Nor is this tendency likely to pass away; on the contrary, it will take deeper root and extend more widely, because it is thoroughly in keeping with the habits, feelings, and wants of working men, who form the majority in these meetings.

A consistent system of social truth will largely increase their influence, by giving them a more settled character and a more important aim.

So far from being in any way destructive, they form a natural though imperfect model of the mode of life which will ultimately be adopted in the regenerate condition of Humanity.

In these unions social sympathies are kept in constant action by a stimulus of a most beneficial kind.

They offer the speediest and most effectual means of elaborating Public Opinion: this at least is the case when there has been a fair measure of individual training.

No one at present has any idea of the extent of the advantages which will one day spring from these spontaneous meetings, when there is an adequate system of general principles to direct them.

Spiritual reorganization will find them its principal basis of support, for they secure its acceptance by the people; and this will have the greater weight, because it will always be given without compulsion or violence.

The objection that meetings of this kind may lead to dangerous political agitation, rests upon a misinterpretation of the events of the Revolution.

So far from their stimulating a desire for what are called political rights, or encouraging their exercise in those who possess them, their tendency is quite in the opposite direction.

They will soon divert working men entirely from all useless attempts to interfere with existing political institutions, and bring them to their true social function, that of assisting and carrying out the operations of the new spiritual power.

It is a noble prospect which is thus held out to them by Positivism, a prospect far more inviting than any of the metaphysical illusions of the day.

The real intention of the Club is to form a provisional substitute for the Church of old times, or rather to prepare the way for the religious building of the new form of worship, the worship of Humanity; which, as I shall explain in a subsequent chapter, will be gradually introduced under the regenerating influence of Positive doctrine.

Under our present republican government all progressive tendencies are allowed free scope, and therefore it will not be long before our people accept this new vent for social sympathies, which in former times could find expression only in Catholicism.

In this theory of Public Opinion one condition yet remains to be described.

A philosophic organ is necessary to interpret the doctrine; the influence of which would otherwise in most cases be very inadequate.

This third condition has been much disputed; but it is certainly even more indispensable than the second.

And in fact it has never been really wanting, for every doctrine must have had some founder, and usually has a permanent body of teachers.

It would be difficult to conceive that a system of moral and political principles should be possessed of great social influence, and yet at the same time that the men who originate or inculcate the system should exercise no spiritual authority.

It is true that this inconsistency did for a time exist under the negative and destructive influence of Protestantism and Deism, because men’s thoughts were for the time entirely taken up with the struggle to escape from the retrograde tendencies of Catholicism.

During this long period of insurrection, each individual became a sort of priest; each, that is, followed his own interpretation of a doctrine which needed no special teachers, because its function was not to construct but to criticize.

All the constitutions that have been recently established on metaphysical principles give a direct sanction to this state of things, in the preambles with which they commence.

They apparently regard each citizen as competent to form a sound opinion on all social questions, thus exempting him from the necessity of applying to any special interpreters.

This extension to the normal state of things of a phase of mind only suited to the period of revolutionary transition, is an error which I have already sufficiently refuted.

In the minor arts of life, it is obvious that general principles cannot be laid down without some theoretical study; and that the application of these rules to special cases is not to be entirely left to the untaught instinct of the artisan.

And can it be otherwise with the art of Social Life, so far harder and more important than any other, and in which, from its principles being less simple and less precise, a special explanation of them in each case is even more necessary?

However perfect the demonstration of social principles may become, it must not be supposed that knowledge of Positive doctrine, even when it has been taught in the most efficient way, will dispense with the necessity of frequently appealing to the philosopher for advice in questions of practical life, whether private or public.

And this necessity of an interpreter to intervene occasionally between the principle and its application, is even more evident from the moral than it is from the intellectual aspect.

Certain as it is that no one will be so well acquainted with the true character of the doctrine as the philosopher who teaches it, it is even more certain that none is so likely as himself to possess the moral qualifications of purity, of exalted aims, and of freedom from party spirit, without which his counsels could have but little weight in reforming individual or social conduct.

It is principally through his agency that we may hope in most cases to bring about that reaction of All upon Each, which, as we have seen, is of such indispensable importance to practical morality.

Philosophers are not indeed the principal source of Public Opinion, as intellectual pride so often leads them to believe.

Public Opinion proceeds essentially from the free voice and spontaneous co-operation of the people.

But in order that the full weight of their unanimous judgment may be felt, it must be announced by some recognized organ.

There are, no doubt, rare cases where the direct expression of popular feeling is enough, but these are quite exceptional.

Thus working men and philosophers are mutually necessary, not merely in the creation of Public Opinion, but also in most cases in the manifestation of it.

Without the first, the doctrine, however well established, would not have sufficient force.

Without the second, it would usually be too incoherent to overcome those obstacles in the constitution of man and of society, which make it so difficult to bring practical life under the influence of fixed principles.

In fact this necessity for some systematic organ to direct and give effect to Public Opinion, has always been felt, even amidst the spiritual anarchy which at present surrounds us, on every occasion in which such opinion has played any important part.

For its effect on these occasions would have been null and void but for some individual to take the initiative and personal responsibility.

This is frequently verified in private life by cases in which we see the opposite state of things; we see principles which no one would think of contesting, practically inadequate, for want of some recognized authority to apply them.

It is a serious deficiency, which is, however, compensated, though imperfectly, by the greater facility of arriving at the truth in such cases, and by the greater strength of the sympathies which they call forth.

But in public life, with its more difficult conditions and more important claims, such entire absence of systematic intervention could never be tolerated.

In all public transactions even now we may perceive the participation of a spiritual authority of one kind or other; the organs of which, though constantly varying, are in most cases metaphysicians or literary men writing for the press.

Thus even in the present anarchy of feelings and convictions, Public Opinion cannot dispense with guides and interpreters.

Only it has to be content with men who at the best can only offer the guarantee of personal responsibility, without any reliable security either for the stability of their convictions or the purity of their feelings.

But now that the problem of organizing Public Opinion has once been proposed by Positivism, it cannot remain long without a solution.

It plainly reduces itself to the principle of separating the two social powers; just as we have seen that the necessity of an established doctrine rested on the analogous principle of separating theory from practice.

It is clear, on the one hand, that sound interpretation of moral and political rules, as in the case of any other art, can only be furnished by philosophers engaged in the study of the natural laws on which they rest.

On the other hand these philosophers, in order to preserve that breadth and generality of view which is their principal intellectual characteristic, must abstain scrupulously from all regular participation in practical affairs, and especially from political life: on the ground that its specializing influence would soon impair their speculative capacity.

And such a course is equally necessary on moral grounds.

It helps to preserve purity of feeling and impartiality of character; qualities essential to their influence upon public as well as upon private life.

Such, in outline, is the Positive theory of Public Opinion.

In each of its three constituent elements, the Doctrine, the Power, and the Organ, it is intimately connected with the whole question of spiritual reorganization; or rather, it forms the simplest mode of viewing that great subject.

All the essential parts of it are closely related to each other.

Positive principles, on the one hand, cannot count on much material support, except from the working classes; these in their turn will for the future regard Positivism as the only doctrine with which they can sympathize.

So, again, with the philosophic organs of opinion;

without the People, their necessary independence cannot be established or sustained.

To our literary classes the separation of the two powers is instinctively repugnant, because it would lay down systematic limits to the unwise ambition which we now see in them.

And it will be disliked as strongly by the rich classes, who will look with fear upon a new moral authority destined to impose an irresistible check upon their selfishness.

At present it will be generally understood and welcomed only by the proletary class, who have more aptitude for general views and for social sympathy.

In France especially they are less under the delusion of metaphysical sophisms and of aristocratic prestige than any other class; and the Positivist view of this primary condition of social regeneration will find a ready entrance into their minds and hearts.

[All three conditions of Public Opinion exist, but have not yet been combined] Our theory of Public Opinion shows us at once how far we have already gone in organizing this great regulator of modern society; how far we still fall short of what is wanted.

The Doctrine has at last arisen: there is no doubt of the existence of the Power; and even the Organ is not wanting.

But they do not as yet stand in their right relation to each other.

The effective impulse towards social regeneration depends, then, on one ultimate condition; the formation of a firm alliance between philosophers and proletaries.

Of this powerful coalition I have already spoken.

I have now to explain the advantages which it offers to the people in the way of obtaining sufficient recognition of all legitimate claims.

Of these advantages, the principal, and that by which the rest will speedily be developed and secured, is the important social function which is hereby conferred upon them.

They become auxiliaries of the new spiritual power; auxiliaries indispensable to its action.

This vast proletary class, which ever since its rise in the Middle Ages has been shut out from the political system, will now assume the position for which by nature it is best adapted, and which is most conducive to the general well-being of society.

Its members, independently of their special vocation, will at last take a regular and most important part in public life, a part which will compensate for the hardships inseparable from their social position.

Their combined action, far from disturbing the established order of things, will be its most solid guarantee, from the fact of being moral, not political.

And here we see definitely the alteration which Positivism introduces in the revolutionary conception of the action of the working classes upon society.

For stormy discussions about rights, it substitutes peaceable definition of duties.

It supersedes useless disputes for the possession of power, by inquiring into the rules that should regulate its wise employment.

[Spontaneous tendencies in the people of a right direction.

Their Communism] A superficial observer of the present state of things might imagine our working classes to be as yet very far from this frame of mind.

But he who looks deeper into the question will see that the very experiment which they are now trying, of extending their political rights, will soon have the effect of showing them the hollowness of a remedy which has so slight a bearing upon the objects really important to them.

Without making any formal abdication of rights, which might seem inconsistent with their social dignity, there is little doubt that their instinctive sagacity will lead them to the still more efficacious plan of indifference.

Positivism will readily convince them that whereas spiritual power, in order to do its work, must ramify in every direction, it is essential to public order that political power should be as a rule concentrated.

And this conviction will grow upon them, as they see more clearly that the primary social problems which are very properly absorbing their attention are essentially moral rather than political.

One step in this direction they have already taken of their own accord, though its importance has not been duly appreciated.

The well-known scheme of Communism, which has found such rapid acceptance with them, serves, in the absence of sounder doctrine, to express the way in which they are now looking at the great social problem.

The experience of the first part of the Revolution has not yet wholly disabused them of political illusions, but it has at least brought them to feel that Property is of more importance than Power in the ordinary sense of the word.

So far Communism has given a wider meaning to the great social problem, and has thereby rendered an essential service, which is not neutralized by the temporary dangers involved in the metaphysical forms in which it comes before us.

Communism should therefore be carefully distinguished from the numerous extravagant schemes brought forward in this time of spiritual anarchy; a time which stimulates incompetent and ill-trained minds to the most difficult subjects of thought.

The foolish schemes referred to have so few definite features, that we have to distinguish them by the names of their authors.

But Communism bears the name of no single author, and is something more than an accidental product of anomalous circumstances.

We should look upon it as the natural progress in the right direction of the revolutionary spirit;

progress of a moral rather than intellectual kind.

It is a proof that revolutionary tendencies are now concentrating themselves upon moral questions, leaving all purely political questions in the background.

It is quite true that the solution of the problem which Communists are now putting forward, is still as essentially political as that of their predecessors; since the only mode by which they propose to regulate the employment of property, is by a change in the mode of its tenure.

Still it is owing to them that the question of property is at last brought forward for discussion: and it is a question which so evidently needs a moral solution, the solution of it by political means is at once so inadequate and so destructive, that it cannot long continue to be debated, without leading to the more satisfactory result offered by Positivism.

Men will see that it forms a part of the final regeneration of opinion and of life, which Positivism is now inaugurating.

To do justice to Communism, we must look at the generous sympathies by which it is inspired, not at the shallow theories in which those sympathies find expression provisionally, until circumstances enable them to take some other shape.

Our working classes, caring but very little for metaphysical principles, do not attach nearly the same importance to these theories as is done by men of literary education.

As soon as they see a better way of bringing forward the points on which they have such legitimate claims, they will very soon adopt the clear and practical conceptions of Positivism, which can be carried out peaceably and permanently, in preference to these vague and confused chimeras, which, as they will instinctively feel, lead only to anarchy.

Till then they will naturally abide by Communism, as the only method of bringing forward the most fundamental of social problems in a way which there shall be no evading.

The very alarm which their present solution of the problem arouses helps to stir public attention, and fix it on this great subject.

But for this constant appeal to their fears, the metaphysical delusions and aristocratic self-seeking of the governing classes would shelve the question altogether, or pass it by with indifference.

The errors of Communism must be rectified; but there is no necessity for giving up the name, which is a simple assertion of the paramount importance of Social Feeling.

However, now that we have happily passed from monarchy to republicanism, the name of _Communist_ is no longer indispensable; the word _Republican_ expresses the meaning as well, and without the same danger.

Positivism, then, has nothing to fear from Communism; on the contrary, it will probably be accepted by most Communists among the working classes, especially in France where abstractions have but little influence on minds thoroughly emancipated from theology.

The people will gradually find that the solution of the great social problem which Positivism offers is better than the Communistic solution.

[Its new title of Socialism] A tendency in this direction has already shown itself since the first edition of this work was published.

The working classes have now adopted a new expression, _Socialism_, thus indicating that they accept the problem of the Communists while rejecting their solution.

Indeed that solution would seem to be finally disposed of by the voluntary exile of their leader.

Yet, if the Socialists at present keep clear of Communism, it is only because their position is one of criticism or inaction.

If they were to succeed to power, with principles so far below the level of their sympathies, they would inevitably fall into the same errors and extravagances which they now instinctively feel to be wrong.

Consequently the rapid spread of Socialism very naturally alarms the upper classes; and their resistance, blind though it be, is at present the only legal guarantee for material order.

In fact, the problem brought forward by the Communists admits of no solution but their own, so long as the revolutionary confusion of temporal and spiritual power continues.

Therefore the universal blame that is lavished on these utopian schemes cannot fail to inspire respect for Positivism, as the only doctrine which can preserve Western Europe from some serious attempt to bring Communism into practical operation.

Positivists stand forward now as the party of construction, with a definite basis for political action; namely, systematic prosecution of the wise attempt of mediaeval statesmen to separate the two social powers.

On this basis they are enabled to satisfy the Poor, and at the same time to restore the confidence of the Rich.

It is a final solution of our difficulties which will make the titles of which we have been speaking unnecessary.

Stripping the old word _Republican_ of any false meaning at present attached to it, we may retain it as the best expression of the social sympathies on which the regeneration of society depends.

For the opinions, manners, and even institutions of future society, _Positivist_ is the only word suitable.

[Property is in its nature social, and needs control] The peculiar reality of Positivism, and its invariable tendency to concentrate our intellectual powers upon social questions, are attributes, both of which involve its adoption of the essential principle of Communism; that principle being, that Property is in its nature social, and that it needs control.