General View of Positivism — Chapter 4 The Influence Of Positivism Upon Women Part 2

During the various phases of ancient Polytheism, the controlling power consisted simply of the moral influence exerted by women in the Family.

In public life the influence of thinkers had not made itself independent of the governmental authority, of which it was sometimes the source, sometimes the instrument.

Mediaeval Catholicism went a step further, and took the first step in systematizing moral force.

It created an independent spiritual authority to which political governments were subordinated, and this authority was always supported by women.

But the complete organization of moral force was reserved for modern times.

It is only recently that the working classes have begun to interfere actively in social questions; and, as I have shown in the preceding chapter, it is from their co-operation that the new spiritual power will derive its practical efficiency.

Limited originally to the sphere of Feeling, and subsequently extended to the intellectual sphere, it henceforward embraces the sphere of Activity;

and this without losing its spiritual character, since the influences of which it consists are entirely distinct from the domain of practical politics.

Each of its three elements persuades, advises, judges;

but except in isolated cases, never commands.

The social mission of Positivism is to regulate and combine their spontaneous action, by directing each to the objects for which it is best adapted.

And this mission, in spite of strong prejudices to the contrary, it will be found well calculated to fulfil.

I have already shown its adaptation to the case of the people and of the philosophic body, whether regarded separately or in combination: I have now to show that it is equally adapted to the case of women.

In proof of this I have but to refer to the principle on which, as stated in the first chapter, the whole system of Positivism is based;

the preponderance of affection in our nature.

Such a principle is of itself an appeal to women to associate themselves with the system, as one of its essential elements.

In Catholicism, their co-operation, though valuable, was not of primary importance, because Catholicism claimed a divine origin independent of their assistance.

But to Positivism they are indispensable, as being the purest and simplest embodiment of its fundamental principle.

It is not merely in the Family that their influence will be required.

Their duty will often be to call philosophers and people back to that unity of purpose which originated in the first place with themselves, and which each of the other elements is often disposed to violate.

All true philosophers will no doubt accept and be profoundly influenced by the conviction, that in all subjects of thought the social point of view should be logically and scientifically preponderant.

They will consequently admit the truth that the Heart takes precedence of the Understanding.

Still they require some more direct incentive to universal Love than these convictions can supply.

Knowing, as they do, how slight is the practical result of purely intellectual considerations, they will welcome so precious an incentive, were it only in the interest of their own mission.

I recognized its necessity myself, when I wrote on the 11th of March, 1846, to her who, in spite of death, will always remain my constant companion[7]: ‘I was incomplete as a philosopher, until the experience of deep and pure passion has given me fuller insight into the emotional side of human nature’.

Strong affection exercises a marvellous influence upon mental effort.

It elevates the intellect at once to the only point of view which is really universal.

Doubtless, the method of pure science leads up to it also; but only by a long and toilsome process, which exhausts the power of thought, and leaves little energy for following out the new results to which this great principle gives rise.

The stimulation of affection under feminine influence is necessary, therefore, for the acceptance of Positivism, not merely in those classes for whom a long preliminary course of scientific study would be impossible.

It is equally necessary for the systematic teachers of Positivism, in whom it checks the tendency, which is encouraged by habits of abstract speculation, to deviate into useless digressions; these being always easier to prosecute than researches of real value.

[Superiority of the new spiritual power to the old.

Self-regarding tendencies of Catholic doctrine] Under this aspect the new spiritual system is obviously superior to the old.

By the institution of celibacy, which was indispensable to Catholicism, its priests were entirely removed from the beneficial influence exercised by women.

Only those could profit from it who did not belong to the ecclesiastical body; the members of that body, as Ariosto has remarked in his vigorous satire, were excluded.

Nor could the evil be remedied, except in very rare cases, by irregular attachment, which inevitably corrupted the priest’s character by involving the necessity of perpetual hypocrisy.

And when we look at the difference of the spirit by which the two systems are pervaded, we shall find still more striking evidence that the new system offers a far larger sphere of moral influence to women than the old.

Both are based upon the principle of affection; but in Positivism the affection inculcated is social, in Catholicism it is essentially personal.

The object of Catholic devotion is one of such stupendous magnitude, that feelings which are unconnected with it are in danger of being crushed.

The priesthood, it is true, wise interpreters in this respect of a general instinct, brought all the more important social obligations within the compass of religion, and held them out as necessary for salvation.

Indirectly, the nobler feelings were thus called into action; but at the same time they were rendered far less spontaneous and pure.

There could be no perfectly disinterested affection under a system which promised eternal rewards for all acts of self-denial.

For it was impossible, and indeed it would have been thought sinful, to keep the future out of sight; and thus all spontaneous generosity was unavoidably tainted by self-interest.

Catholicism gave rise to an ignoble theory of morals which became very mischievous when it was adopted by the metaphysicians; because, while retaining the vicious principle, they swept away the checks by which the priesthood had controlled it.

But even when we look at the purest form in which the love of God was exhibited, we cannot call it a social feeling, except in so far as the same object of worship was held out simultaneously to all.

Intrinsically, it is anti-social, since, when attained in absolute perfection, it implies the entire sacrifice of all other love.

And in the best representatives of Christian thought and feeling, this tendency is very apparent.

No one has portrayed the Catholic ideal with such sublimity and pathos as the author of the _Imitation_, a work which so well deserved the beautiful translation of Corneille.

And yet, reading it as I do daily, I cannot help remarking how grievously the natural nobleness of Thomas A’Kempis was impaired by the Catholic system, although in spite of all obstacles he rises at times to the purest ardour.

Certainly those of our feelings which are purely unselfish must be far stronger and more spontaneous than ever has yet been supposed, since even the oppressive discipline of twelve centuries could not prevent their growth.

[The spirit of Positivism, on the contrary, is essentially social.

The Heart and the Intellect mutually strengthen each other] Positivism, from the fact of its conformity with the constitution of our nature, is the only system calculated to develop, both in public and in private life, those high attributes of Humanity which, for want of adequate systematic culture, are still in their rudimentary stage.

Catholicism, while appealing to the Heart, crushed Intellect, and Intellect naturally struggled to throw off the yoke.

Positivism, on the contrary, brings Reason into complete harmony with Feeling, without impairing the activity of either.

Scientific study of the relation which each individual bears to the whole race is a continual stimulus to social sympathy.

Without a theory of society, it is impossible to keep this relation distinctly and constantly in view.

It is only noticed in a few exceptional cases, and unconnected impressions are soon effaced from the memory.

But the Positivist teacher, taking the social point of view invariably, will make this notion far more familiar to us than it has ever been before.

He will show us the impossibility of understanding any individual or society apart from the whole life of the race.

Nothing but the bewilderment caused by theological and metaphysical doctrines can account for the shallow explanations of human affairs given by our teachers, attributing as they do to Man what is really due to Humanity.

But with the sounder theory that we now possess, we can see the truth as it really stands.

We have but to look each of us at our own life under its physical, intellectual, or moral aspects, to recognize what it is that we owe to the combined action of our predecessors and contemporaries.

The man who dares to think himself independent of others, either in feelings, thoughts, or actions, cannot even put the blasphemous conception into words without immediate self-contradiction, since the very language he uses is not his own.

The profoundest thinker cannot by himself form the simplest language; it requires the co-operation of a community for several generations.

Without further illustration, the tendency of Positive doctrine is evident.

It appeals systematically to our social instincts, by constantly impressing upon us that only the Whole is real; that the Parts exist only in abstraction.

But independently of the beneficial influence which, in this final state of Humanity, the mind will exercise upon the heart, the direct culture of the heart itself will be more pure and more vigorous than under any former system.

It offers us the only means of disengaging our benevolent affections from all calculations of self-interest.

As far as the imperfection of man’s nature admits, these affections will gradually become supreme, since they give deeper satisfaction than all others, and are capable of fuller development.

Setting the rewards and punishments of theology aside, we shall attain at last to that which is the real happiness of man, pure and disinterested love.

This is truly the Sovereign Good, sought for so long by former systems of philosophy in vain.

That it surpasses all other good one fact will show, known to the tender-hearted from personal experience; that it is even better to love than to be loved.

Overstrained as this may seem to many, it is yet in harmony with a general truth, that our nature is in a healthier state when active than when passive.

In the happiness of being loved, there is always some tinge of self-love; it is impossible not to feel pride in the love of one whom we prefer to all others.

Since, then, loving gives purer satisfaction than being loved, the superiority of perfectly disinterested affection is at once demonstrated.

It is the fundamental defect of our nature, that intrinsically these affections are far weaker than the selfish propensities connected with the preservation of our own existence.

But when they have been once aroused, even though the original stimulus may have been personal, they have greater capacity of growth, owing to the peculiar charm inherent in them.

Besides, in the exercise of these feelings, all of us can co-operate with and encourage one another, whereas the reverse is the case with the selfish instincts.

There is, therefore, nothing unreasonable in supposing that Positivism, by regulating and combining these natural tendencies, may rouse our sympathetic instincts to a condition of permanent activity hitherto unknown.

When the heart is no longer crushed by theological dogmas, or hardened by metaphysical theories, we soon discover that real happiness, whether public or private, consists in the highest possible development of the social instincts.

Self-love comes to be regarded as an incurable infirmity, which is to be yielded to only so far as is absolutely necessary.

Here lies the universal adaptability of Positivism to every type of character and to all circumstances.

In the humblest relations of life, as in the highest, regenerate Humanity will apply the obvious truth, It is better to give than to receive.

The Heart thus aroused will in its turn react beneficially upon the Intellect; and it is especially from women that this reaction will proceed.

I have spoken of it so fully before, that I need not describe it further.

It is in Feeling that I find the basis on which the whole structure of Positivism, intellectually as well as morally considered, rests.

The only remark I have now to add is, that by following out this principle, philosophical difficulties of the most formidable kind are at once surmounted.

From moral considerations, the intellect may be readily induced to submit to scientific restrictions, the propriety of which would remain for a long time matter of debate, were philosophical discussions the only means of indicating it.

Attempt, for instance, to convince a pure mathematician, however conscientious and talented, that Sociology is both logically and scientifically superior to all other studies.

He would not readily admit this; and severe exertion of the inductive and deductive faculties can alone convince him of it.

But by the aid of Feeling, an artisan or a woman can, without education, readily grasp this great encyclopædic principle, and apply it practically to the common affairs of life.

But for this, the larger conceptions of philosophy would have but a limited range, and very few would be capable of the course of study which is yet so important on social grounds for all.

Comprehensiveness of mind is no doubt favourable to sympathy, but is itself more actively stimulated by it.

When the Positivist method of education is accepted, moral excellence will be very generally regarded as a guarantee of real intellectual capacity.

The revolutionist leaders of the Convention showed their sense of this connexion by allowing, as they did sometimes, republican ardour to outweigh scientific attainment.

Of course, so long as men remain without a systematic theory of morals, such policy would be likely to fail of its object, and indeed would become positively mischievous.

But the reproach is usually that it was a retrograde policy, a reproach far more applicable to the present system, in which the standard of fitness for any office is regulated exclusively by intellectual considerations, the heart being altogether disregarded.

Historically we can explain this practice by the fact that the religious faith in which our moral nature has hitherto been trained has been of a most oppressive character.

Ever since the Middle Ages, the intellect and the heart have been unavoidably at issue.

Positivism is the only system which can put an end to their antagonism, because, as I have before explained, while subordinating Reason to Feeling, it does so in such a way as not to impair the development of either.

With its present untenable claims to supremacy, Intellect is in reality the principal source of social discord.

Until it abdicates in favour of the Heart, it can never be of real service in reconstruction.

But its abdication will be useless, unless it is entirely voluntary.

Now this is precisely the result which Positivism attains, because it takes up the very ground on which the claims of intellect are defended, namely, scientific demonstration, a ground which the defenders of intellect cannot repudiate without suspicion at once attaching to their motives.

But theological or metaphysical remedies can only exasperate the disease.

By oppressing the intellect they provoke it to fresh insurrection against the heart.

[Intellectual and moral affinities of women with Positivism] For all these reasons, women, who are better judges of moral questions than ourselves, will admit that Positivism, incontestably superior as it is to other systems intellectually, surpasses them yet more in dealing with the affections.

Their only objection arises from confounding Positive Philosophy itself with its preliminary course of scientific study.

Women’s minds no doubt are less capable than ours of generalizing very widely, or of carrying on long processes of deduction.

They are, that is, less capable than men of abstract intellectual exertion.

On the other hand, they are generally more alive to that combination of reality with utility which is one of the characteristics of Positive speculation.

In this respect they have much in common intellectually with the working classes; and fortunately they have also the same advantage of being untrammelled by the present absurd system of education.

Nor is their position far removed from what it should be normally; being less engaged than men in the business of life, their contemplative faculties are called into activity more easily.

Their minds are neither preoccupied nor indifferent; the most favourable condition for the reception of philosophical truth.

They have far more affinity intellectually with philosophers who truly deserve the name, than we find in the scientific men of the present day.

Comprehensiveness of thought they consider as important as positivity, whereas our savants care for nothing but the latter quality, and even that they understand imperfectly.

Molière’s remarkable expression, _des clartés de tout_, which I applied in the last chapter to popular education, was used by him in reference to women.

Accordingly we find that women took a vivid interest in the very first attempt made to systematize Positive speculation, the Cartesian philosophy.

No more striking proof could be given of their philosophical affinities; and the more so that in the Cartesian system moral and social speculations were necessarily excluded.

Surely, then, we may expect them to receive Positivism far more favourably, a system of which the principal subject of speculation is the moral problem in which both sexes are alike interested.

Women, therefore, may, like the people, be counted among the future supporters of the new philosophy.

Without their combined aid it could never hope to surmount the strong repugnance to it which is felt by our cultivated classes, especially in France, where the question of its success has first to be decided.

[Catholicism purified love, but did not directly strengthen it] But when women have sufficient acquaintance with Positivism, to see its superiority to Catholicism in questions of feeling, they will support it from moral sympathy even more than from intellectual adhesion.

It will be the heart even more than the mind which will incline them to the only system of philosophy which has fully recognized the preponderance of Feeling.

They cannot fail to be drawn towards a system which regards women as the embodiment of this principle; the unity of human nature, of which this principle is the basis, being thus entrusted to their special charge.

The only reason of their regret for the past, is that the present fails to satisfy their noblest social instincts.

Not that Catholicism ever really satisfied them;

indeed in its general character it is even less adapted to women than to men, since the dominant quality of woman’s nature is in direct contradiction with it.

Christianity, notwithstanding its claims to moral perfection, has always confounded the quality of tenderness with that of purity.

And it is true that love cannot be deep unless it is also pure.

But Catholicism, although it purified love from the animal propensities which had been stimulated by Polytheism, did nothing otherwise to strengthen it.

It has given us indeed too many instances of purity, pushed to the extent of fanaticism, without tenderness.

And this result is especially common now, because the austerity of the Christian spirit is not corrected, as it used to be, by the inspiring influences of Chivalry.

Polytheism, deficient as it was in purity, was really far more conducive than Christianity, to tenderness.

Love of God, the supreme affection round which Catholicism endeavoured to concentrate all other feelings, was essentially a self-regarding principle, and as such conflicted with woman’s noblest instincts.

Not only did it encourage monastic isolation, but if developed to the full extent, it became inconsistent with love for our fellow men.

It was impiety for the knight to love his Lady better than his God; and thus the best feelings of his nature were repressed by his religious faith.

Women, therefore, are not really interested in perpetuating the old system; and the very instincts by which their nature is characterized, will soon incline them to abandon it.

They have only been waiting until social life should assume a less material character;

so that morality, for the preservation of which they justly consider themselves responsible, may not be compromised.

And on this head Positivism satisfies their heart no less than their understanding with all the guarantees that they can require.

Based as it is upon accurate knowledge of our nature, it can combine the simple affectionate spirit of Polytheism with the exquisite purity of Catholicism, without fear of taint from the subversive sophisms engendered by the spiritual anarchy of our times.

Not however that purity is to be placed on the same level with tenderness.

Tenderness is the more essential of the two qualities, because more closely connected with the grand object of all human effort, the elevation of Social Feeling over Self-love.

In a woman without tenderness there is something even more monstrous than in a man without courage.

Whatever her talents and even her energy may be, they will in most cases prove mischievous both to herself and to others, unless indeed they should be nullified by the restraint of theological discipline.

If she has force of character it will be wasted in a struggle against all legitimate authority; while her mental power will be employed only in destructive sophisms.

Too many cases of this kind present themselves in the social anarchy of the present time.