General View of Positivism — Chapter 4 The Influence Of Positivism Upon Women Part 1

[Women represent the affective element in our nature, as philosophers and people represent the intellectual and practical elements] In their action, then, upon society, philosophers may hope for the energetic support of the working classes.

But the regenerating movement requires still the co-operation of a third element, an element indicated by our analysis of human nature, and suggested also by historical study of the great crisis of modern times.

The moral constitution of man consists of something more than Intellect and Activity.

These are represented in the constitution of society by the philosophic body and the proletariate.

But besides these there is Feeling, which, in the theory put forward in the first chapter of this work, was shown to be the predominating principle, the motive power of our being, the only basis on which the various parts of our nature can be brought into unity.

Now the alliance between philosophers and working men, which has been just described, however perfectly it may be realized, does not represent the element of Feeling with sufficient distinctness and prominence.

Certainly without Social Feeling, neither philosophers nor proletaries can exercise any real influence.

But in their case its source is not sufficiently pure nor deep to sustain them in the performance of their duty.

A more spontaneous and more perennial spring of inspiration must be found.

With the philosopher social sympathies will never be wanting in coherence, since they will be connected with his whole system of thought; but this very scientific character will deaden their vigour, unless they are revived by impulses in which reflection has no share.

Roused as he will be by the consciousness of public duty to a degree of activity of which abstract thinkers can form no conception, the emotions of private life will yet be not less necessary for him than for others.

Intercourse with the working classes will be of the greatest benefit to him; but even this is not enough to compensate the defects of a life devoted to speculation.

The sympathies of the people again, though stronger and more spontaneous than those of the philosopher, are, in most cases, less pure and not so lasting.

From the pressure of daily necessities it is difficult for them to maintain the same consistent and disinterested character.

Great as are the moral advantages which will result from the incorporation of the people in modern society, they are not enough by themselves to outweigh the force of self-interest aroused by the precarious nature of their position.

Emotions of a gentler and less transient kind must be called into play.

Philosophers may relieve the working classes from the necessity of pressing their own claims and grievances; but the fact still remains, that the instincts by which those claims are prompted are personal rather than social.

Thus, in the alliance which has been here proposed as necessary for social reorganization, Feeling, the most influential part of human nature, has not been adequately represented.

An element is wanting which shall have the same relation to the moral side of our constitution, as the philosophic body has with Intellect, and the people with Activity.

On this, as well as on other grounds, it is indispensable that Women be associated in the work of regeneration as soon as its tendencies and conditions can be explained to them.

With the addition of this third element, the constructive movement at last assumes its true character.

We may then feel confident that our intellectual and practical faculties will be kept in due subordination to universal Love.

The digressions of intellect, and the subversive tendencies of our active powers will be as far as possible prevented.

[Women have stood aloof from the modern movement, because of its anti-historic and destructive character] Indispensable to Positivism as the co-operation of women is, it involves one essential condition.

Modern progress must rise above its present imperfect character, before women can thoroughly sympathize with it.

At present the general feeling amongst them is antipathy to the Revolution.

They dislike the destructive character which the Revolution necessarily exhibited in its first phase.

All their social sympathies are given to the Middle Ages.

And this is not merely due, as is supposed, to the regret which they very naturally feel for the decline of chivalry, although they cannot but feel that the Middle Ages are the only period in which the feeling of reverence for women has been properly cultivated.

But the real ground of their predilection is deeper and less interested.

It is that, being morally the purest portion of Humanity, they venerate Catholicism, as the only system which has upheld the principle of subordinating Politics to Morals.

This, I cannot doubt, is the secret cause of most of the regret with which women still regard the irrevocable decay of mediaeval society.

They do not disregard the progress which modern times have made in various special directions.

But our erroneous tendencies towards bringing back the old supremacy of Politics over Morality, are, in their eyes, a retrograde movement so comprehensive in its character that no partial improvements can compensate for it.

True, we are able to justify this deviation provisionally, since the decay of Catholicism renders political dictatorship necessary.

But women, having comparatively little to do with the practical business of life, can hardly appreciate this necessity without a more satisfactory theory of history than they at present possess.

It is a complete mistake to charge women with being retrograde on account of these feelings of regret which are most honourable to them.

They might retort the charge with far better reason on the revolutionists, for their blind admiration of Greek and Roman society, which they still persist in asserting to be superior to Catholic Feudalism; a delusion, the continuance of which is principally due to our absurd system of classical education, from which women are fortunately preserved.

However this may be, the feelings of women upon these subjects are a very plain and simple demonstration of the first condition of social regeneration, which is, that Politics must again be subordinated to Morality; and this upon a more intelligible, more comprehensive, and more permanent basis than Catholicism could supply.

A system which supplied such a basis would naturally involve reverence for women as one of its characteristic results.

Such, then, are the terms on which women will cordially co-operate in the progressive movement.

Nothing but incapacity to satisfy these terms could induce any thinkers to condemn the conception as retrograde.

It is not, then, to the Revolution itself that women feel antipathy, but to the anti-historic spirit which prevailed in its first phase.

The blind abuse lavished on the Middle Ages wounds their strongest sympathies.

They care little for metaphysical theories of society in which human happiness is made to consist in a continual exercise of political rights; for political rights, however attractively presented, will always fail to interest them.

But they give their cordial sympathy to all reasonable claims of the people; and these claims form the real object of the revolutionary crisis.

They will wish all success to philosophers and workmen when they see them endeavouring to transform political disputes into social compacts, and proving that they have greater regard for duties than for rights.

If they regret the decline of the gentle influence which they possessed in former times, it is principally because they find it superseded by coarse and egotistic feelings, which are now no longer counterbalanced by revolutionary enthusiasm.

Instead of blaming their antipathies, we should learn from them the urgent necessity of putting an end to the moral and intellectual anarchy of our times; for this it is which gives a ground of real justice to their reproaches.

[But they will sympathize with constructive tendencies; and will distinguish sound philosophy from scientific specialities] Women will gladly associate themselves with the Revolution as soon as its work of reconstruction is fairly begun.

Its negative phase must not be prolonged too far.

It is difficult enough for them to understand how such a phase could ever be necessary; therefore they cannot be expected to excuse its aberrations.

The true connexion of the Revolution with the Middle Ages must be fairly stated.

History, when rightly interpreted, will show them that its real object is, while laying down a surer basis for Morality, to restore it to the old position of superiority over Politics in which the mediaeval system first placed it.

Women will feel enthusiasm for the second phase of the Revolution, when they see republicanism in the light in which Positivism presents it, modified by the spirit of ancient chivalry.

Then, and not till then, will the movement of social regeneration be fairly begun.

The movement can have no great force until women give cordial support to it; for it is they who are the best representatives of the fundamental principle on which Positivism rests, the victory of social over selfish affections.

On philosophers rests the duty of giving logical coherence to this principle, and saving it from sophistical attacks.

Its practical working depends upon the proletary class, without whose aid it would almost always be evaded.

But to maintain it in all its purity, as an inspiration that needs neither argument nor compulsion, is the work of women only.

So constituted, the alliance of the three classes will be the foreshadowed image of the normal state to which Humanity is tending.

It will be the living type of perfect human nature.

Unless the new philosophy can obtain the support of women, the attempt to substitute it for theology in the regulation of social life had better be abandoned.

But if the theory stated in my first chapter be true, Positivism will have even greater influence with women than with the working classes.

In the principle which animates it, in its manner of regarding and of handling the great problem of human life, it is but a systematic development of what women have always felt instinctively.

To them, as to the people, it offers a noble career of social usefulness, and it holds out a sure prospect of improvement in their own personal position.

Nor is it surprising that the new philosophy should possess such qualities.

They follow naturally from the reality which is one of its chief claims to acceptance; in other words, from the exactness with which it takes account of the facts of every subject that it deals with.

Strong as the prejudices of women are upon religious questions, it cannot be long before they find out that Positivism satisfies, not merely their intellectual, but their moral and social wants better than Catholicism.

They will then have no further reason for clinging to the old system, of the decayed condition of which they are perfectly aware.

At present they not unnaturally confound Positivism with the scientific specialities on which it is based.

Scientific studies have, as they see, a hardening influence, which they cannot suppose that the new school of philosophers, who insist so strongly upon the necessity of studying science, can have escaped.

Closer acquaintance with the subject will show them where their error lies.

They will see that the moral danger of scientific studies arises almost entirely from want of purpose and from irrational speciality, which always alienate them from the social point of view.

But for the Positivist this danger does not exist; since, however far he may carry these preliminary studies, he does so simply in order to gain a stronger grasp of social questions.

His one object is to concentrate all the powers of Man upon the general advancement of the race.

And so long as this object be kept in view, women’s good sense will readily distinguish between the training necessary for it, and the puerilities of the learned societies.

The general spirit of this work, however, makes further explanation unnecessary.

[Women’s position in society.

Like philosophers and people, their part is not to govern, but to modify] The social mission of woman in the Positive system follows as a natural consequence from the qualities peculiar to her nature.

In the most essential attribute of the human race, the tendency to place social above personal feeling, she is undoubtedly superior to man.

Morally, therefore, and apart from all material considerations, she merits always our loving veneration, as the purest and simplest impersonation of Humanity, who can never be adequately represented in any masculine form.

But these qualities do not involve the possession of political power, which some visionaries have claimed for women, though without their own consent.

In that which is the great object of human life, they are superior to men; but in the various means of attaining that object they are undoubtedly inferior.

In all kinds of force, whether physical, intellectual, or practical, it is certain that Man surpasses Woman, in accordance with a general law which prevails throughout the animal kingdom.

Now practical life is necessarily governed by force rather than by affection, because it requires unremitting and laborious activity.

If there were nothing else to do but to love, as in the Christian utopia of a future life in which there are no material wants, Women would be supreme.

But life is surrounded with difficulties, which it needs all our thoughts and energies to avoid; therefore Man takes the command, notwithstanding his inferiority in goodness.

Success in all great efforts depends more upon energy and talent than upon goodwill, although this last condition reacts strongly upon the others.

Thus the three elements of our moral constitution do not act in perfect harmony.

Force is naturally supreme, and all that women can do is to modify it by affection.

Justly conscious of their superiority in strength of feeling, they endeavour to assert their influence in a way which is often attributed by superficial observers to the mere love of power.

But experience always teaches them that in a world where the simplest necessaries of life are scarce and difficult to procure, power must belong to the strongest, not to the most affectionate, even though the latter may deserve it best.

With all their efforts they can never do more than modify the harshness with which men exercise their authority.

And men submit more readily to this modifying influence, from feeling that in the highest attributes of Humanity women are their superiors.

They see that their own supremacy is due principally to the material necessities of life, provision for which calls into play the self-regarding rather than the social instincts.

Hence we find it the case in every phase of human society that women’s life is essentially domestic, public life being confined to men.

Civilization, so far from effacing this natural distinction, tends, as I shall afterwards show, to develop it, while remedying its abuses.

Thus the social position of women is in this respect very similar to that of philosophers and of the working classes.

And we now see why these three elements should be united.

It is their combined action which constitutes the moral or modifying force of society.

Philosophers are excluded from political power by the same fatality as women, although they are apt to think that their intellectual eminence gives them a claim to it.

Were our material wants more easily satisfied, the influence of intellect would be less impeded than it is by the practical business of life.

But, on this hypothesis, women would have a better claim to govern than philosophers.

For the reasoning faculties would have remained almost inert had they not been needed to guide our energies; the constitution of the brain not being such as to favour their spontaneous development.

Whereas the affective principle is dependent on no such external stimulus for its activity.

A life of thought is a more evident disqualification for the government of the world even than a life of feeling, although the pride of philosophers is a greater obstacle to submission than the vanity of women.

With all its pretensions, intellectual force is not in itself more moral than material force.

Each is but an instrument; the merit depends entirely upon its right employment.

The only element of our nature which is in itself moral is Love; for Love alone tends of itself towards the preponderance of social feeling over self-interest.

And since even Love cannot govern, what can be the claim of Intellect?

In practical life precedence must always depend upon superior energy.

Reason, even more than Feeling, must be restricted to the task of modifying.

Philosophers therefore must be excluded from government, at least as rigidly as women.

It is in vain for intellect to attempt to command; it never can do more than modify.

In fact, the morality which it indirectly possesses is due to this impossibility of exercising compulsory power, and would be ruined by the attainment of it, supposing it were possible.

Intellect may do much to amend the natural order of things, provided that it does not attempt to subvert it.

What it can do is by its power of systematic arrangement to effect the union of all the classes who are likely to exert a beneficial influence on material power.

It is with this view that every spiritual power has availed itself of the aid of women, as we see was the case in the Middle Ages.

Proceeding with our sociological analysis of moral force, we shall find an equally striking resemblance between the influence of Women and that exercised by the People.

In the first stage of progress, there is no modifying power except what springs from Feeling; afterwards Intellect combines with it, finding itself unable to govern.

The only element now wanting is Activity; and this want, which is indispensable, is supplied by the co-operation of the people.

The fact is, that although the people constitute the basis on which all political power rests, yet they have as little to do directly with the administration of power as philosophers or women.

Power, in the strict sense of the word, power, that is, which controls action without persuading the will, has two perfectly distinct sources, numbers and wealth.

The force of numbers is usually considered the more material of the two; but in reality it is the more moral.

Being created by co-operation, it involves some convergence of ideas and feelings, and therefore it does not give such free scope for the self-regarding instincts as the more concentrated power of wealth.

But for this very reason, it is too indirect and precarious for the ordinary purposes of government.

It can influence government morally, but cannot take an active part in it.

The same causes which exclude philosophers and women apply in the case of the people.

Our material necessities are so urgent, that those who have the means of providing for them will always be the possessors of power.

Now the wealthy have these means; they hold in their hands the products of labour, by which each generation facilitates the existence and prepares the operations of its successor.

Consequently the power of the capitalist is one of so concentrated a kind, that numbers can very seldom resist it successfully.

Even in military nations we find the same thing; the influence of numbers, though more direct, affects only the mode of acquiring wealth, not its tenure.

But in industrial states, where wealth is acquired by other ways than violence, the law is evident.

And with the advance of civilization it will operate not less, but more strongly.

Capital is ever on the increase, and consequently is ever creating means of subsistence for those who possess nothing.

In this sense, but in no other, the cynical maxim of Antiquity, _Paucis nascitur humanum genus_, will always bear a true meaning.

The few provide subsistence for the many.

We come back, then, to the conclusion of the last chapter; that the working classes are not destined for political power, but that they tend to become a most important source of moral power.

The moral value of their influence is even more indirect than that of philosophers, and depends even more in their case upon subordination politically.

In the few cases where government passes for a time into the hands of the masses, wealth in its turn assumes a sort of moral influence foreign to its nature.

It moderates the violence with which government is apt to be administered in such cases.

The high intellectual and moral qualities belonging to the working classes are, as we have seen, in great part due to their social position.

They would be seriously impaired if the political authority that belongs to wealth were habitually transferred to numbers.

[The united action of philosophers, women, and proletaries constitutes Moral Force] Such, in outline, is the Positive theory of Moral Force.

By it the despotism of material force may be in part controlled.

It rests upon the union of the three elements in society who are excluded from the sphere of politics strictly so called.

In their combined action lies our principal hope of solving, so far as it can be solved, the great problem of man’s nature, the successful struggle of Social Feeling against Self-love.

Each of the three elements supplies a quality indispensable to the task.

Without women this controlling power would be deficient in purity and spontaneous impulse; without philosophers, in wisdom and coherence; without the people, in energy and activity.

The philosophic element, although neither the most direct nor the most efficient, is yet the distinctive feature of this power, because its function is to organize its constitution and direct its operations in accordance with the true laws of social life.

As being the systematic organ of the spiritual power it has become identified with it in name.

This, however, may lead to an erroneous conception.

The moral aspect of the spiritual power is more important than the intellectual.

While retaining the name as an historical tradition of real value, Positivists attach a somewhat different meaning to it.

It originated in a time when theories of society were unknown, and when Intellect was considered as the central principle of human nature.

Spiritual power, as interpreted by Positivism, begins with the influence of women in the family; it is afterwards moulded into a system by thinkers, while the people are the guarantees for its political efficiency.

Although it is the intellectual class that institutes the union, yet its own part in it, as it should never forget, is less direct than that of women, less practical than that of the people.

The thinker is socially powerless except so far as he is supported by feminine sympathy and popular energy.

Thus the necessity of associating women in the movement of social regeneration creates no obstacle whatever to the philosophy by which that movement is to be directed.

On the contrary, it aids its progress, by showing the true character of the moral force which is destined to control all the other forces of man.

It involves as perfect an inauguration of the normal state as our times of transition admit.

For the chief characteristic of that state will be a more complete and more harmonious union of the same three classes to whom we are now looking for the first impulse of reform.

Already we can see how perfectly adapted to the constitution of man this final condition of Humanity will be.

Feeling, Reason, Activity, whether viewed separately or in combination, correspond exactly to the three elements of the regenerative movement, Women, Philosophers, and People.

Verification of this theory may be found more or less distinctly in every period of history.

Each of the three classes referred to have always borne out the biological law that the life of relation or animal life, is subordinated to the life of nutrition.

Still more striking is the application to this case of another general principle, namely, that Progress is the development of Order; a principle which, as I showed in the second chapter, connects every dynamical question in Sociology with the corresponding statical conception.

For with the growth of society, the modifying influence of moral force is always increasing, both by larger scope being given to each of its three elements specially, and also by the more perfect consolidation of their union.

Robertson has made an important remark on the gradual improvement in the condition of women, which is but a particular case of this sociological law.

The general principle on which progress in all three classes depends, is the biological law, that the preponderance of vegetable life over animal life diminishes as the organism is higher in the scale and is more perfectly developed.