|
LETTERS TO THE PRESS (10)
Are Men Born Free and Equal? - continued
The Daily Telegraph (29 January, 1890 - p.5)
ARE MEN BORN FREE AND EQUAL?
TO THE EDITOR OF “THE DAILY TELEGRAPH.”
SIR—I have already offered a cordial welcome to Mr. Robert Buchanan on the occasion of his début in the theatre of political speculation; and the sincerity of my wish that he may continue to exhibit the results of the poetic method, in its application to the dry facts of natural and civil history, is nowise affected by the circumstance that he considers me to be an advocate of “retrograde and anti-human political theories,” a defender “of the topsy-turveydom of modern society,” and, altogether, a scientific Philistine of the worst description.
I do not address you for the purpose of combating these opinions; or even to set forth some pleas for mercy which might weigh in my favour with any judge less confident of his competency. I would not even be so indecent as to linger too long on this side of annihilation; but, unless I be worse than other criminals, I trust you will permit me to send a few words to the scattered remnant of the people, in whose minds the anathema just fulminated has not extinguished any little credit I may have hitherto possessed. It appears that there are “three principles, on the triumph or failure of which depends the future of society: equal freedom to share the necessaries of life; equal freedom of opportunity to advance; equal freedom to shape individual thought and action within the necessary limitations of political organisation. If the status quo admits these principles, and if they are allowed free scope of activity, then nothing more is to be said.”
Now, it seems to me that the political principles of which I have been a tolerably active advocate all my life, and of which I hope to remain an advocate so long as I have the power to speak or write—may be expressed, though somewhat clumsily, by just these words. Perhaps I deceive myself, but it really is my impression that I am hardly open to the charge of having failed to assert freedom of thought and action any time these five-and-thirty years. Unless I am dreaming, I have done what lay in my power to promote those measures of public education which afford the best of opportunities for advancement to the poorer members of society; and that in the teeth of bitter opposition on the part of fanatical adherents of the political philosophy which Mr. Buchanan idolises, the consistent application of which reasoned savagery to practice would have left the working classes to fight out the struggle for existence among themselves, and bid the State to content itself with keeping the ring.
As to equal freedom to share the necessaries of life, I really was not aware that anybody is, or can be, refused that freedom. If a man has anything to offer in exchange for a loaf which the baker thinks worth it, that loaf will certainly be given to him; but if he has nothing, then it is not I, but the extreme Individualists, who will say that he may starve. If the State relieves his necessities, it is not I but they who say it is exceeding its powers; if private charity succours the poor fellow, it is not I but they who reprove the giver for interfering with the survival of the fittest. Logically enough, they ask; why preserve Nature’s failures? That a philosophy of which these are the unvarnished results should rouse a humanitarian enthusiast, whose sincerity is beyond question, to be its champion is singular; though not more singular than the vilipending of Saint Just for over-legislation, by a worshipper of Rousseau. An ingrained habit of scientific grovelling among facts has led me to the conclusion that Jacobin over-legislation was a direct consequence of Rousseauism. These gentlemen guillotined the people who did not care to be free and equal and brotherly in their fashion. If anyone doubt the fact, I would advise him to read M. Taine’s volume on the “Jacobin Conquest of France,” which is all the more interesting just now, as it affords the best of commentaries on the Parnellite conquest of Southern Ireland.
The source of a great deal of the wrath which seems to have been raised by my essay appears to me to lie in the circumstance that my critics are too angry to see that the point of difference between us consists, not in the appreciation of the merits of freedom in the three directions indicated, but in regard to the extent of those “necessary limitations” of freedom to which all agree. My position is that those limitations are not determinable by à priori speculation, but only by the results of experience; that they cannot be deduced from principles of absolute ethics, once and for all, but that they vary with the state of development of the polity to which they are applied. And I may be permitted to observe that the settlement of this question lies neither with the celestial courts of poesy nor with the tribunals of speculative cloudland, but with men who are accustomed to live and work amongst facts, instead of dreaming amidst impracticable formulas.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
T. H. HUXLEY.
Eastbourne, Jan. 27.
[Note:
In The Coming Terror, to this sentence:
‘As to equal freedom to share the necessaries of life, I really was not aware that anybody is, or can be, refused that freedom.*’
Buchanan adds this footnote:
‘* What, no one?’]
___
The Daily Telegraph (31 January, 1890 - p.3)
ARE MEN BORN FREE AND EQUAL?
TO THE EDITOR OF “THE DAILY TELEGRAPH.”
SIR—Unwilling to occupy your space, or to try the patience of your readers needlessly, I abstained, in my letter of the 27th, from dealing with a topic of some importance suggested by a sentence in Mr. Robert Buchanan’s second communication. On reflection, however, I am convinced that, in the interest of the public, the omission was an error, and I ask for an opportunity of making reparation. This is the sentence:
“The true political problem, placed before themselves by those propagandists who, like Mr. Spencer, are Socialists only in the good and philosophical sense, and who are not, like mere Communists, enemies of all vested interests whatsoever, is to regenerate society without destroying that part of its structure which experience proves to be sound.”
Mr. Spencer, therefore, is declared by Mr. Robert Buchanan to be a “Socialist” “in the good and philosophical sense.” The other day the Newcastle Socialists declared that their doctrine concerning land-ownership was founded upon Mr. Spencer’s early teachings, and that these had never been really disowned by him. If they are right in this contention, and if, in Mr. Buchanan’s eyes, their socialism is of the “good and philosophical” sort, then, of course, it may be proper to call Mr. Spencer a Socialist. I offer no opinion on this delicate subject; but I may be permitted to say that, hitherto, I have laboured under the impression that, whether he is always consistent or not, Mr. Spencer belongs to a school of political philosophy which is diametrically opposed to everything which has hitherto been known as Socialism.
The variations of Socialism are as multitudinous as those of Protestantism; but as even a Bossuet must be compelled to admit that the Protestant sects agree in one thing, namely, the refusal to acknowledge the authority of the Pope; so, I do not think it will be denied that all the Socialist sects agree in one thing, namely, the right of the State to impose regulations and restrictions upon its members, over and beyond those which may be needful to prevent any one man from encroaching upon the equal rights of another. Every Socialistic theory I know of demands from the Government that it shall do something more than attend to the administration of justice between man and man, and to the protection of the State from external enemies. Contrariwise, every form of what is called “Individualism” restricts the functions of government, in some or in all directions, to the discharge of internal and external police duties, or, in the case of Anarchist Individualism, still further. Scientifically founded by Locke, applied to economics by the laissez-faire philosophers of the eighteenth century, exhaustively stated by Wilhelm von Humboldt, and developed, in this country, with admirable consistency and irrefutable reasoning (the premisses being granted) by Mr. Auberon Herbert, I had always imagined Individualism to have one of its most passionate advocates in Mr. Spencer. I had fondly supposed, until Mr. Robert Buchanan taught me better, that if there was any charge Mr. Spencer would find offensive, it would be that of being declared to be, in any shape or way, a Socialist. Can it be possible that a little work of Mr. Spencer’s, “The Man versus the State,” published only six years ago, is not included by Mr. Buchanan among the “more recent writings” of which he speaks, as, perhaps, too popular for his notice?
However this may be, I desire to make clear to your readers what the “good and philosophical” sort of “Socialism” which finds expression in the following passages is like:
“There is a notion, always more or less prevalent, and just now vociferously expressed, that all social suffering is removable, and that it is the duty of somebody or other to remove it. Both these beliefs are false.” (p. 19)
“A creature not energetic enough to maintain itself must die,” is said to be “a dictum on which the current creed and the creed of science are at one.” (p. 19.)
“Little as politicians recognise the fact, it is nevertheless demonstrable that these various public appliances for working-class comfort, which they are supplying at the cost of the ratepayers, are intrinsically of the same nature as those which, in past times, treated the farmer’s man as half-labourer and half-pauper.” (p. 21.)
On p. 22, legislative measures for the better housing of artisans and for the schooling of their children; on p. 24, for the regulation of the labour of women and children; on p. 27, for sanitary purposes; meet with the like condemnation. And the whole position is neatly summed up in the answer to the question, “What is essential to the idea of a slave?” put at page 34. It is too long to cite in its entirety, but here is the pith of it:
“The essential question is, How much is he compelled to labour for other benefit than his own, and how much can he labour for his own benefit? The degree of his slavery varies according to the ratio between that which he is forced to yield up and that which he is allowed to retain; and it matters not whether his master is a single person or a society. If, without option, he has to labour for the society and receives from the general stock such portion as the society awards him, he becomes a slave to the society. Socialistic arrangements necessitate an enslavement of this kind; and towards such an enslavement many recent measures, and, still more, the measures advocated, are carrying us.” (p. 35.)
The words which I have italicised, as it seems to me, condemn Socialism of all kinds pretty forcibly; and I further suggest that they appear to be somewhat inconsistent with the acceptance of even a “good and philosophical” form of that creed. But Mr. Robert Buchanan’s profound study of Mr. Spencer’s works may enable him to produce contradictory passages. I invite him to do so.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
T. H. HUXLEY.
Eastbourne, Jan. 29.
[Note:
In The Coming Terror, to this sentence:
‘I offer no opinion on this delicate subject; but I may be permitted to say that, hitherto, I have laboured under the impression that, whether he is always consistent or not, Mr. Spencer belongs to a school of political philosophy which is diametrically opposed to everything which has hitherto been known as Socialism.*’
Buchanan adds this footnote:
‘* For ‘Socialism’ read ‘Communism,’ and this is true.’]
___
The Daily Telegraph (3 February, 1890 - p.3)
ARE MEN BORN FREE AND EQUAL?
TO THE EDITOR OF “THE DAILY TELEGRAPH.”
SIR—I have certainly expressed myself very ill if I appeared to be accusing Professor Huxley of wholesale Philistinism, using the word “Philistinism” to imply a class of intelligence outside of all sympathy with advanced ideals. No one can recognise more fully than myself the service which Science has of late years done for Free Thought and for Humanity, and it was precisely because Professor Huxley was classed, and classed deservedly, among the most distinguished of those Scientists who have sacrificed leisure and comfort for the sake of their fellows, that I was aghast to find him ranging himself once, but I hope not for ever, with the opponents of human progress.
On what plea, may I ask, does Professor Huxley, in classing not only the uncrowned and unhonoured poet, but also the crowned and honoured philosopher, as equally impracticable, arrogate to himself the exclusive mastery of current and historical “facts”? Seemingly upon the plea that both philosophers and poets dwell in mere cloudland; while he alone, with mailed feet like those of Perseus, walks dragon-slaying, on the common ground. It is idle to defend the Philosophers, but I think even the Poets have shown their capacity to realise practical problems. One of them, whom all the world honours, sounded the trumpet-note of human freedom when he wrote the “Areopagitica.” Another of them, less appreciated and far less noble, struck off the bonds of Calas and touched the quick of human doubt when he sang of the Earthquake at Lisbon. Both these men were particularly distinguished—the second no doubt a little barbarously—by their consummate mastery of “facts.” As to Mr. Spencer, a philosopher pur et simple, he has marshalled in his “Principles of Sociology” and in the compilations published as practical addenda to that work, an array of social and historical evidence unequalled certainly in this generation. Professor Huxley, on the other hand, burrows so deep among what he considers “facts” that he becomes a sort of moral troglodyte, and loses knowledge of the upper sunshine and fresh air.
An tenebras Orci visat vastasque lacunas.
And when he emerges into common daylight what has he to tell us? Not the grand truths which he and others have won honour by advocating, but trivial ipse dixit statements, not to be verified in any daylight whatever. His one ruling idea concerning men is that they must be “governed”—washed, cleaned, assorted, parcelled out and labelled, educated up to the theory that there is a political “statute of limitations,” and that the force of a special governmental Providence is a thing not to be resisted.
Just look a little closer at his statements that “there is much to be said for the opinion that force effectually and thoroughly used, so as to render further opposition hopeless, establishes an ownership that should be recognised as soon as possible,” and that “for the welfare of society, as well as for that of individual men, there should be a statute of limitations in respect of the consequences of wrongdoing.” Let us ask ourselves, in the first place, by what means men are to determine the hopelessness of opposition? The history of the Christian origins, of Society before the English or the French Revolutions, nay, above all, the story of Science itself, of its martyrs and its conquerors, is the record of struggles which, from the point of view of contemporary experience, were altogether “hopeless.” Even the last French Empire, with its triumph over a generation, with its glorification of the gospel according to Belial and Baron Hausmann, threatened France with utter despair, crammed and fed France with all the physical comforts of sensualism and what Carlyle called “Devil’s dung.” Then look at results; look at the conscience of Humanity hoping against hope, rejecting all the Devil’s moral prescriptions “to be quiet and yield to the powers which be and must be,” but disintegrating the evil of political institutions by sheer persistency of opposition. Whenever Professor Huxley can show that there is no hope, on the earth or above it, then assuredly, and not till then, we will sit down with him and “grovel among facts.” Meanwhile, we can only grieve that the religion of Science, hailed by all of us as the birth of a new day, is fossilizing already into a religion of despair; that the New Politics of the Expert is a chaos, not a cosmos, has not even the glimmering of a cosmos. And the “statute of limitations”? Reduce it to common sense, and what does it mean? It admits that modern Society is founded on ancient wrongdoing, that Jacob robbed Esau long ago; but it asserts that—on the corollary, of course, that opposition is “hopeless”—Esau, having discovered the theft, and returned to claim his birthright, is to go back to the desert. Biblical History, being much shrewder than modern Science, tells us that he did nothing of the kind. The life corporate of society, as Science and Philosophy alike agree, is practically an enlarged version of the life of the Individual. Thus, then—to make an illustration—I was knocked down and robbed of all I possessed, twenty, thirty years ago, by a person stronger than myself. For all these years I have been a pauper and an outcast, through my enemy’s wrong-doing. To-day, after endless suffering, I discover my enemy, a rich and prosperous man, a member (say) of the City Council and the Vigilance Committee, enjoying the unearned increment as well as the original capital he stole. I go to him quietly and say, “You robbed me years ago; I am not malicious, and you may keep what has accrued, but I want you, my dear sir, to restore me my original capital.” Am I to be answered, to be silenced, by the statement that the robbery took place such a very long time ago; and that, my case being hopeless, ownership established had “better be recognised as soon as possible?”
“As to freedom to share the necessaries of life,” says our new Daniel come to Judgment, “I really was not aware that anybody is, or can be, refused that freedom,” and he illustrates his contention by saying that “if a man has anything to offer which the baker thinks worth a loaf, that loaf will certainly be given to him.” What a mockery of, not to say “grovelling in,” facts, have we here! What a putting of the cart before the horse! Society begins by paralysing a man, by denying to him ordinary light, leisure, instruction, the power of “having anything to offer”; it converts him into a mere pauper by refusing him the common vocabulary of civilisation, and then, when he asks for bread, Society replies, “Certainly; what have you to give me in exchange?” What Freedom and Equality mean is that every man should be invested with the knowledge enabling him, by fair labour, to produce something which is a loaf’s value. Is this the case? If it is so then I am stultified, and the Professor’s “facts” are victorious.
So much for the Professor’s general statements. In the postscriptal letter published this morning in your columns, Professor Huxley suggests that I am possibly much mistaken in calling Mr. Herbert Spencer “a Socialist,” and, after quoting certain passages from the philosopher’s writings, invites me to quote from the same writings passages which are contradictory. So far as the Land Question itself is concerned, and the attitude of the Newcastle reformers thereupon, I presume I need not go further than cite the following passage from “Social Statics”: “Equity does not permit property in land. For, if one portion of the earth’s surface may justly become the property of an individual, held for his sole use and benefit, as a thing to which he has an exclusive right, then other portions of the earth’s surface may be so held, and our planet may thus lapse into private hands. It follows that if the landowners have a valid right to its surface, all those who are not landowners have no right at all to its surface.” Mr. Spencer has not been in the habit of disclaiming his own dicta, and the Socialists of Newcastle need have no fear, I fancy, that he will disclaim this one. But, Professor Huxley insists, Mr. Spencer’s later utterances are those, not of Socialism, but of Individualism, entirely overlooking the fact that the terms Socialism and Individualism are not contrary terms, but two facts of the same proposition.
So far as Socialism in our own country is concerned, I ought to know something of its inner nature, for I was born in its odour of popular unsanctity. My father was one of Robert Owen’s missionaries, and the personal influence of Owen—one of the greatest and best of doctrinaires—influenced all my early life. Now, Owen’s first and cardinal dictum, the one on which he insisted with almost wearisome iteration, was that Man, though born free and equal in the sphere of moral rights, was “entirely the creature of circumstances,” and the main mission of his life was the mission of Socialism generally—to modify those circumstances so as to produce, practically, a new Moral World. I have yet to learn that such Socialism conflicts to any unnecessary extent with Individualism; indeed, the history of the movement is full of amusing episodes illustrating the entire freedom of its believers in such matters of personal conduct, and even of opinion, as did not imperil the machinery of the social organism. The well-known and well-meaning Mr. Galpin went about clothed in a simple sack, and the divergences of individual opinion on moral questions led to strange manifestations at New Harmony. Across the Channel, and in France particularly, the story of Socialism is the story of infinite eccentricities. From the personal absurdities of St. Simon down to those of Auguste Comte, from the amazing performances of the speculative Enfantin to those of his pupil and practician Bazard, it is easy to perceive that Socialism postulates the right of a man to do what he pleases so long as he takes his turn at the task-wheel, and does not interfere with the privileges of his fellow-believers.
It is not for me to explain Mr. Spencer, who can so admirably explain himself. It is quite possible that he may disclaim being called “a Socialist,” since the word (as Professor Huxley well knows) is so connected in the public mind with an idea of general anarchy; but I wrote advisedly of “the higher Socialism,” not of the lower, just as I might write of the higher Christianity, to distinguish it from the lower, the historical, and the dogmatic forms of that creed. Professor Huxley’s particular instances, in which he finds either an anarchic Individualism or an absurd contradiction, may be very summarily dealt with.
Mr. Spencer has stated, in the first place, that it is quite impossible to “remove social suffering” altogether, a statement grounded on his experience that, so long as men are men, there will be individual victory and failure. I fail to see how that conflicts with the opinion that the chances in the competition should be equalised as far as possible—in one way, as we have seen, by preventing individuals from monopolising the land. Strangely enough, Professor Huxley stigmatises with the charge of dangerous Individualism the very man who says that Society should protect itself at all points from the encroachment of individuals! “A creature not energetic enough to sustain itself must die,” says Mr. Spencer again, which is surely true, and in no way at variance with the theory that the social organism must be restrained from cruelly crushing any creature out of life. Socialism contends that it is not want of energy, but want of opportunity, that pauperises men and destroys individual vitality.
Professor Huxley’s next citation from Mr. Spencer—that “it is demonstrable that various appliances for working-class comfort, supplied at the cost of the ratepayers, are intrinsically of the same nature as those which in past times treated the farmer’s man as half-labourer and half-pauper”—and that in proportion to a man’s acceptance of social help and superintendence is the degree of his “slavery”—would, I conceive, be subscribed to by any Socialist. For what men want is to start the social reformation at the beginning and forwards, not at the end and backwards. What the “good and philosophical” Socialist says is clear enough: “I do not particularly care for Governmental interference with my private life and comfort, though I recognise the necessity of political and civic government, down to such general details as draining and lighting. What I do want is to have the weeds cleared away which prevent my progress as an individual member of society. You cannot help me much by compelling me to labour, without option, for the common benefit, while, at the same time, you confirm the institutions which allow large classes of men not to labour at all. I will not become a ‘slave to your society,’ because I do not recognise that society as founded on absolute political ethics. I was born a free man, not a slave.” I do not fancy that Mr. Spencer disagrees on any essential point with the “good and philosophical” Socialist.
Let me put the matter plainly. Professor Huxley misunderstands the higher Socialism as thoroughly as he misunderstands Mr. Spencer. He is “trimming,” while Mr. Spencer is reconstructing. The triumph of Socialism, historically and morally, is the triumph of Individualism. Ecclesiasticism, for example, has gone down like a house of cards, because the free thought of Individualism—id est, Socialism—said, in face of huge majorities, that Ecclesiasticism was an interference with the right of private judgment in matters personal and spiritual. Protestantism decayed, from the moment it became, instead of the protest of a minority, the tyranny of a majority. Socialism itself, the lower Socialism, has collapsed in many of its organisations, because it forgot its first principles of freedom and equality; because (to take Professor Huxley’s illustration) it suggested to the Revolutionists the idea of sustaining common freedom and equality by guillotining each other, and because, as in the case of Enfantin and his group, by upholding a scientific and sensuous priesthood as “the Living Law of God,” it adopted the insane vocabulary of superstition. “Father,” said Bonheur, to Enfantin, “I believe in you, as I believe in the sun. You are to my eyes the Sun of Humanity.” Well might Lafitte exclaim to such enthusiasts, “You post your advertisements too high—one cannot read them.”
Unhappily the leaning of most new creeds, as of all the old, is in the direction of social tyranny. And why? Simply because poor human nature finds it hard to understand, and far harder to carry out, absolute ethical principles. Socialism, like all other human efforts to secure the greatest happiness of the greatest number—like Christianity, like the Religion of Humanity—has failed again and again. But if Professor Huxley’s dicta of quasi-providential or Governmental interference with the conduct of life were to be universally accepted, Humanity might well despair for ever; for with the destruction of Individualism would end the last hope of the higher Socialism. Over-legislation would restore slavery to mankind, and preserve the semi-disintegrated feudality which is still so large a portion of our political system. The philosopher, not the quidnunc, holds the secret of wise legislation. The creed of the higher Socialism, not the creed of those who believe that Socialism conflicts with Individualism, is that which follows the Law of Nature, by basing individual chances on the natural freedom and equality of men.
To find Professor Huxley fighting for the status quo in Politics is to me a far sadder sight than to find him (for such a miracle may some day happen) fighting for the status quo in Religion. Religion, after all, can take care of itself. But the man who argues in favour of Force as a proof of ownership, and of a statute of limitations in matters of secular wrongdoing, will one day have to cast in his lot with Ecclesiasticism and the Bishops. There is no way out of the dilemma, for Church and State stand or fall together. I shall watch with curiosity the process which may lead to the conversion of another Saul.—I am, &c.,
ROBERT BUCHANAN.
25, Maresfield-gardens, South Hampstead, Jan. 31.
[Note:
Changes in The Coming Terror:
‘What Freedom and Equality mean is that every man should be invested with the knowledge enabling him, by fair labour, to produce something which is a loaf’s value.’ - ‘knowledge’ replaced with ‘power’
‘Mr. Spencer’s later utterances are those, not of Socialism, but of Individualism, entirely overlooking the fact that the terms Socialism and Individualism are not contrary terms, but two facts of the same proposition.’ - ‘facts’ replaced with ‘facets’ (see note below)
‘It is not for me to explain Mr. Spencer, who can so admirably explain himself. It is quite possible that he may disclaim being called “a Socialist,” since the word (as Professor Huxley well knows) is so connected in the public mind with an idea of general anarchy;’ - ‘general anarchy’ replaced with ‘state tyranny’
‘and that in proportion to a man’s acceptance of social help and superintendence is the degree of his “slavery”—would, I conceive, be subscribed to by any Socialist.’ - replaced with
‘and that in proportion to a man’s helplessness without social aid and superintendence is the degree of his ‘slavery’—would, I conceive, be subscribed to by most Socialists.’]
___
The Daily Telegraph (4 February, 1890 - p.3)
ARE MEN BORN FREE AND EQUAL?
TO THE EDITOR OF “THE DAILY TELEGRAPH.”
SIR—Your readers must take Mr. Robert Buchanan’s censures of me and my opinions for what they are worth; I am not concerned to defend myself against them. Mr. Buchanan thinks that “Socialism and individualism are not contrary terms, but two facts (? faces) of the same proposition.”
Hence, it would seem to follow that when Mr. Spencer declares that “Socialistic arrangements necessitate enslavement,” he also means that “individualistic arrangements necessitate enslavement.”
And I must leave that instructive development of absolute political ethics—together with the question whether Mr. Buchanan is entitled to cite a work which Mr. Spencer has repudiated—to be further discussed by those who may be interested in such topics, of whom I am not one.—I am, your obedient servant,
T. H. HUXLEY.
Eastbourne, Feb. 3.
[Note:
Changes in The Coming Terror:
After ‘but two facts (? faces)’ Buchanan adds the following footnote:
“‘Facts’ in my letter was a misprint for ‘facets.’”
And after ‘of whom I am not one’, Buchanan adds ‘(!)’ ]
___
The Daily Telegraph (5 February, 1890 - p.4)
ARE MEN BORN FREE AND EQUAL?
TO THE EDITOR OF “THE DAILY TELEGRAPH.”
SIR—Suffer me, like Professor Huxley, to say one last word, and that word shall be one of cordial acquiescence in the suggestion that the enslavement of Society is also the enslavement of the Individual. I have yet to learn that an individual, save in the sphere of absolute thought and ethics, is not in a certain sense the “slave” of his own organism. Just as a society is held together by its laws of life, so is a man held together by identical laws. He cannot escape from the general discharge of functions and interchange of currents which condition his vitality. The microcosm is a society just as much as the macrocosm. So far the scientist and I are agreed. We only part company at the point where the scientist treats both society and the individual as mechanical only, independent altogether of those absolute principles which, while they fail to “interest” Professor Huxley, are attacked so vehemently in his system of “Providence Made Easy.”—I am, &c.
ROBERT BUCHANAN.
25, Maresfield-gardens, South Hampstead, Feb. 4.
___
The Daily Telegraph (8 February, 1890 - p.5)
“REASONED SAVAGERY.”
TO THE EDITOR OF “THE DAILY TELEGRAPH.”
SIR—Though the recent controversy carried on in your columns under the title “Are Men Born Free and Equal?” has chiefly concerned certain political views of mine, I have thus far remained passive, and even now do not propose to say anything about the main issues. To Mr. Buchanan I owe thanks for the chivalrous feeling which prompted his defence. Professor Huxley, by quoting passages showing my dissent from what is currently understood as Socialism, has rendered me a service. I might fitly let the matter pass without remark, were it not needful to rectify a grave misrepresentation.
Describing the position of the penniless man, Professor Huxley says: “It is not I, but the extreme Individualists, who will say that he may starve. If the State relieves his necessities, it is not I, but they, who say it is exceeding its powers; if private charity succours the poor fellow it is not I, but they, who reprove the giver for interfering with the survival of the fittest.” And the view thus condemned by implication he has previously characterised as “the political philosophy which Mr. Buchanan idolises, the consistent application of which reasoned savagery to practice would have left the working classes to fight out the struggle for existence among themselves.”
Professor Huxley is fertile in strong expressions, and “reasoned savagery” is one of them; but in proportion as the expressions used are strong, should be the care taken in applying them, lest undeserved stigmas may result. Unfortunately, in this case he appears to have been misled by that deductive method which he reprobates, and has not followed that inductive method which he applauds. Had he looked for facts instead of drawing inferences, he would have found that I have nowhere expressed or implied any such “reasoned savagery” as he describes. For nearly fifty years I have contended that the pains attendant on the struggle for existence may fitly be qualified by the aid which private sympathy prompts. In a pamphlet on “The Proper Sphere of Government,” written at the age of twenty-two, it is argued that in the absence of a poor law “the blessings of charity would be secured unaccompanied by the evils of pauperism.” In “Social Statics” this view is fully set forth. While the discipline of the battle of life is recognised and insisted upon as “that same beneficent, though severe discipline, to which the animate creation at large is subject,” there is also recognised and insisted upon the desirableness of such mitigations as spontaneously result from individual fellow-feeling. It is argued that privately “helping men to help themselves” leaves a balance of benefit, and that, “although by these ameliorations the process of adaptation must be remotely interfered with, yet, in the majority of cases, it will not be so much retarded in one direction as it will be advanced in another.”
As no cruel thing can be done without character being thrust a degree back towards barbarism, so no kind thing can be done without character being moved a degree forward towards perfection. Doubly efficacious, therefore, are all assuagings of distress, instigated by sympathy; for not only do they remedy the particular evils to be met, but they help to mould humanity into a form by which such evils will one day be precluded (pp. 318-19, 1st edit.).
Professor Huxley’s ingenuity as a controversialist, great though it is, will, I fancy, fail to disclose the “reasoned savagery” contained in these sentences. Should he say that, during the forty years which have elapsed since they were written, my views have changed from a more humane to a less humane form, and that I would now see the struggle for existence, with resulting survival of the fittest, carried on without check, then I meet the allegation by another extract. In the “Principles of Sociology,” sec. 322, I have explained at some length that every species of creature can continue to exist only by conforming to two opposed principles—one for the life of the immature, and the other for the life of the mature. The law for the immature is, that benefits received shall be great in proportion as worth is small; while for the mature the law is, that benefits received shall be great in proportion as worth is great—worth being measured by efficiency for the purposes of life. The corollary, as applied to social affairs, runs as follows:
Hence the necessity of maintaining this cardinal distinction between the ethics of the family and the ethics of the State. Hence the fatal result if family disintegration [referring to a view of Sir Henry Maine] goes so far that family policy and State policy become confused. Unqualified generosity must remain the principle of the family while offspring are passing through their early stages; and generosity increasingly qualified by justice must remain its principle as offspring are approaching maturity. Conversely, the principle of the society guiding the acts of citizens to one another must ever be justice, qualified by such generosity as their several natures prompt; joined with unqualified justice in the corporate acts of the society to its members. However fitly in the battle of life among adults the proportioning of rewards to merits may be tempered by private sympathy in favour of the inferior, nothing but evil can result if this proportioning is so interfered with by public arrangements that demerit profits at the expense of merit.
Still more recently has there been again set forth this general view. In “The Man versus the State,” pp. 64-67, along with the assertion that “society in its corporate capacity cannot, without immediate or remoter disaster, interfere with the play of these opposed principles, under which every species has reached such fitness for its mode of life as it possesses,” there goes a qualification like that above added.
I say advisedly—society in its corporate capacity, not intending to exclude or condemn aid given to the inferior by the superior in their individual capacities. Though, when given so indiscriminately as to enable the inferior to multiply, such aid entails mischief; yet in the absence of aid given by society, individual aid, more generally demanded than now, and associated with a greater sense of responsibility, would, on the average, be given with the effect of fostering the unfortunate worthy rather than the innately unworthy; there being always, too, the concomitant social benefit arising from culture of the sympathies.
In other places the like is expressed or implied, but it is needless to cite further evidence. The passages I have quoted will make sufficiently clear the opinion I have all along held, and still hold; and everyone will be able to judge whether this opinion is rightly characterised by the phrase “Reasoned savagery.”
HERBERT SPENCER.
London, Feb. 7.
[Note:
Changes in The Coming Terror:
‘what is currently understood as Socialism,’ (italics added by Buchanan)
Some background to Herbert Spencer’s intervention in the ‘discussion’ is provided in Chapter XXII: Latter Day Controversies. (November, 1889—October, 1895.) of The Life and Letters of Herbert Spencer by David Duncan (London: Williams & Norgate, 1911. Cheap edition. First published: Methuen & Co., 1908) pp. 329-336, which is available at the Internet Archive. I quote the following from pages 333-336:
‘With the new year the controversy entered upon a new phase.
TO JOHN TYNDALL.
8 February, 1890.
I send you a copy of the Daily Telegraph [8 February] in which, as you will see, I have had to defend myself against another grave misrepresentation.
One would have thought that after having done me so much mischief and after having professed his regret, Huxley would at least have been careful not to do the like again forthwith, but besides a perfectly gratuitous sneer unmistakably directed against me in the opening of his article in the current number of the Nineteenth Century, there comes this mischievous characterization diffused among the quarter of a million readers of the Daily Telegraph.
In the Daily Telegraph of 23 January, Mr. Robert Buchanan had taken up “the criticism of the socialistic theories of Rousseau by Professor Huxley, in the Nineteenth Century.” In a second letter (27th) he referred to Spencer as one of those who “are socialists only in the good and philosophical sense, and who are not, like mere communists, enemies of all vested interests whatsoever.” In a third communication (3 February) he criticised letters from 334 Professor Huxley of the 29th and 31st respectively. In the former of these Professor Huxley had animadverted on “the political philosophy which Mr. Buchanan idolizes, the consistent application of which reasoned savagery to practice would have left the working classes to fight out the struggle for existence among themselves, and bid the State to content itself with keeping the ring.” If a man has nothing to offer in exchange for a loaf, “it is not I, but the extreme Individualists, who will say that he may starve. If the State relieves his necessities, it is not I, but they, who say it is exceeding its powers; if private charity succours the poor fellow, it is not I, but they, who reprove the giver for interfering with the survival of the fittest.” A keen controversialist like Professor Huxley could not fail to fasten on the sentence in which Mr. Buchanan classed Spencer with socialists in the good and philosophical sense. “I had fondly supposed, until Mr. Robert Buchanan taught me better, that if there was any charge Mr. Spencer would find offensive, it would be that of being declared to be, in any shape or way, a socialist.” He wondered whether Mr. Buchanan had read The Man versus the State. “However this may be, I desire to make clear to your readers what the ‘good and philosophical sort of Socialism,’ which finds expression in the following passages, is like.” Professor Huxley then gave quotations from, or references to, passages in The Man versus the State, pp. 19, 21, 22, 24, 27, 34, 35.
TO ROBERT BUCHANAN.
5 February, 1890.
Thank you for your last letter to the Daily Telegraph, received this morning. You have shown yourself extremely chivalrous in taking up the question in this and in the preceding letters.
In the course of our conversation on Sunday I did not to any extent enter upon the questions at issue. . . . It seems to me, however, that candour requires me to say that I cannot entirely endorse the version you give of my political views. Unless understood in a sense different from that which will ordinarily 335 be given to them, I hardly see how the words “higher Socialism” are applicable. It is true that I look forward to a future in which the social organization will differ immensely from any we now know, and perhaps from any we now conceive. . . . But I hold that competition and contract must persist to the last and that any equalizations which interfere with their free play will be mischievous. The fact that from the beginning of my political life I have been an opponent of national education, and continue to be one, will show you that I cannot coincide in your view that it is the duty of society to prepare its individual members for the battle of life. I hold it to be exclusively the duty of parents. . . .
Sanguine of human progress as I used to be in earlier days, I am now more and more persuaded that it cannot take place faster than human nature is itself modified; and the modification is a slow process, to be reached only through many, many generations. When I see the behaviour of these union men in the strikes we have had and are having; when I see their unscrupulous tyranny and utter want of any true conception of liberty, it seems to me unquestionable that any new régime constituted in their interests would soon lapse into a despotic organization of a merciless type.
Borrowing as a heading for a letter to the Daily Telegraph (8 February) Professor Huxley’s phrase “Reasoned Savagery,” Spencer pointed out that “for nearly fifty years I have contended that the pains attendant on the struggle for existence may fitly be qualified by the aid which private sympathy prompts.” “Everyone will be able to judge whether this opinion is rightly characterized by the phrase ‘Reasoned Savagery.’”
To realize the bitterness of Spencer’s feelings it is necessary to be reminded of the sense of injustice that rankled in his breast on reflecting that, notwithstanding the precept and example of a lifetime in denouncing every form of oppression and injustice, he should be charged with upholding brutal individualism and his views should be branded as “reasoned savagery.” One must also remember that the ill-health and depression, which in recent years had kept him away from London and more or less in retirement, had induced a state of abnormal sensitiveness to criticism. Moreover, clinging to friendship so tenaciously as he did and entertaining such a high ideal of its obligations, he felt with special keenness an act which, rightly or wrongly, 336 he regarded as unfriendly. Taking into account all the circumstances one can understand the difficulty he had in responding to the efforts of the friends of both to repair the breach. These efforts were after a time given up, and Professor Huxley’s name, hitherto so frequently met with, almost disappears from the correspondence for some years. It was not till towards the close of 1893 that cordial relations were re-established.’]
_____
In The Coming Terror Buchanan adds this ‘Final Note’:
FINAL NOTE ON THE DISCUSSION.
It will be seen that much of the question, ‘Are men born free and equal?’ became merged in the other question, ‘What is Socialism?’ My answer to that question—i.e., that true Socialism was a combination to protect the rights of individuals—was paradoxical enough to puzzle rny friend Mr. Spencer, and I had neither the time nor the opportunity to explain my meaning fully.I have no more sympathy than Mr. Spencer himself (as I have shown elsewhere) with any kind of tyrannous organization, whether framed in the name of vested interests or in the name of the people. True Socialism—the Science of Sentiment—to which I adhere, fetters no man’s moral activity, limits no man’s character, restricts no man’s evolution:
‘No man can save another’s Soul,
Or pay another’s Debt.’
And what the individual man cannot do, cannot be done by any organization of men. Thus I stand, with Mr. Spencer, for the spread of the sense of moral responsibility, for individual effort and energization; while Professor Huxley stands for the status quo, for Beneficent Legislation, for Providence made Easy. As little as either of these teachers do I see hope or find comfort in the savagery of false Socialism, in the Anarchy of Ignorance, in the terrorism of the emerging Demogorgon. Far as I follow Mr. Spencer, however, in his masterly abstract statements, there is a point where even a disciple and a friend may hesitate. I cannot calmly leave the regeneration of things evil to the slow and certain evolution of the corporate conscience; I feel that there is much to be said for the advocates of a more active social reorganization, and I am not so convinced as Mr. Spencer of the necessary sacredness of contracts, or of the wisdom of holding them inviolable. It would not be difficult, I think, to define the limits within which even State Socialism is expedient and beneficial. Nothing certainly can be more terrible than the existing condition of things, both social and political, and all efforts to mend that condition, be they ever so revolutionary, have my sympathy. It is quite clear, therefore, that I do not follow the Prophet with my eyes shut, and I can quite understand that Mr. Spencer must have considered me, in more than one expression of opinion, a Devil’s Advocate.
R. B.
_____
The following comments on the discussion appeared in other newspapers:
The Belfast News-Letter (28 January, 1890 - p.3)
NOTES.
_____
A BOLD attempt has met with a cruel failure. Mr. Robert Buchanan has tried to draw Professor Huxley into a Daily Telegraph controversy on the origin of society. Professor Huxley, in a recent magazine article, had been insulting the corpse of the “social contract,” as propounded by Jean Jacques Rousseau. It appears, however, that Mr. Buchanan is an admirer and disciple of that venerable phantom, and he challenged professor Huxley to an interchange of newspaper letters, each party to go on writing until he was convinced by the other. How does Professor Huxley treat the offer? He politely declines it, and insists upon regarding Mr. Robert Buchanan with the scientific curiosity due to an interesting survival of an extinct type. Provoking, is it not?
___
The Derby Daily Telegraph (28 January, 1890 - p.2)
Free and Equal.
A contemporary whose columns are always instructive and amusing, having disposed of the questions “Is Marriage a Failure,” and “Is Marriage Eternal,” is now finding space and seeing fair play, while a number of able and distinguished correspondents, notably Mr. Robert Buchanan and Professor Huxley, are discussing “Are men born free and equal?” Rousseau wrote “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains,” and the watchword of almost all great social upheavals has been, as in France, “Liberty, equality, and fraternity.” Mr. Robert Buchanan writes in favour of regenerating society without destroying that part of its structure which experience proves to be sound, of adjusting the relations of human beings in such a manner as to secure the utmost amount of liberty and equality possible. He also advocates equal freedom of opportunity and equal freedom to shape individual thought and action within the necessary limitations of political organisation. In theory and in principle this is all very beautiful. That in practice it would be any improvement upon existing professions is not at all clear. Mr. Buchanan himself tells us that society has refused from time immemorial to be ruled in the conduct of life by either the principles or the precepts of Christianity. His mission he declares to be to explain a few simple points of that propagandism which proposes to redress centuries of wrongdoing, and, possibly, to reconstruct society. Of the present state of matters he writes:—“Men hoard up riches in this world, and when one cheek is smitten they do not offer the other. They pray in the temple, but they curse and cheat in the market-place. Interrogated on this inconsistency, they explain that adherence to the absolute tenets of their religion would be suicidal. Instead of loving one another we, in this Christian country, allow wealth to accumulate and men to decay; permit, as in the case of the deer forests of Scotland, the accumulated capital of one or two men to mean the destruction and expatriation of thousands; suffer, as in Ireland, a landlordism without even the excuse of capital to drive a whole nation into despair and into crime.” As a matter of fact all are not born free, either figuratively or literally, neither are they born equal mentally or physically, or with regard to prospects or opportunities. The tendency of our civilisation and of our legislation is all in the direction of removing artificial inequalities, and providing for the unfortunate and afflicted. That much remains to be accomplished in that direction, probably few would care to dispute. The objection even now does not seem to be so much against principle and profession as practice, and that appears always to have been a weakness of the human family. They are almost invariably immeasurably worse than their principles. How mere railing against that which is or even substituting other principles as likely to be set at naught can effect any good purpose is not quite so clear as the apostles of the new propaganda may imagine. It would be dangerous to prophesy or speculate. The promoters may at least receive the fullest credit for the very best intentions.
___
Hull Daily Mail (30 January, 1890 - p.2)
Mr Labouchere steps into the Daily Telegraph letter-writing fray, and deals a shrewd knock at his fellow Radical, Mr Robert Buchanan, whose contention that all men are born equal appears to Mr Labouchere to find a satisfactory and most welcome refutation in the fact that all men are not born Buchanans. The Huxley-Buchanan paper quarrel and the Labouchere comment thereon shows us harmlessly and ludicrously how small is the chance that the visionary schemes of those Radicals who talk so big and act so little will ever come to the point of doing practical harm to humanity. Should they ever get the upper hand of the party of common sense, they would infallibly tear each other in pieces as a preliminary to getting to work on their peaceable fellow citizens.
___
Punch. or the London Charivari (22 February, 1890)
’ARRY ON EQUALITY.
DEAR CHARLIE,—Bin down as a dab with that dashed heppydemick, dear boy.
I ’ave bloomin’ nigh sneezed my poor head orf. You know that there specie of toy
Wot they call cup-and-ball! That’s me, CHARLIE! My back seemed to open and shut,
As the grippe-demon danced on my innards, and played pitch-and-toss with my nut.
Hinfluenza be blowed! It licks hague and cholera rolled into one.
The Sawbones have give it that name, I’m aware, but of course that’s their fun.
I’ve ’ad colds in the head by the hunderd, but this weren’t no cold, leastways mine.
Howsomever, I’m jest coming round a bit, thanks to warm slops and QyNine.
Took to reading, I did as I mended; that’s mostly a practice with me.
When I’m down on my back that’s the time for a turn at my dear old D. T.
A party named ROBERT BUCHANAN, as always appears on the job,
Was a slating a chappie called HUXLEY. Thinks I, I’ll take stock of friend BOB.
Well, he ain’t much account, that’s a moral; a ramblinger Rad never wos.
Old HUXLEY’Swuth ten on him, CHARLIE, though he’s rather huppish and poz.
Are men really born free and equal? Ah! that’s wot they’re harguing hout.
BOB B., he says “Yus;” HUXLEY, “No;” and BOB’S wrong, there’s no manner of doubt.
“Free and equal?” Oh, NEBUCHADNEZZAR! how can they talk sech tommy-rot?
Might as well say as Fiz and Four-Arf should be equally fourpence a pot.
Nice hidea, but taint so, that’s the wust on it. There’s where these dreamers go wrong.
Ought’s nothink, and that as is, is; all the rest isn’t wuth a old Song.
Bad as BUGGINS, the Radical Cobbler, these mugs are. Sez BUGGINS, sez he,
Wos it Nature give Mudford his millions, and three bob a day to poor me?
Not a bit on it. Nature’s a mother, and meant all her gifts for us all.
It’s a Law as gives Mudford his Castle, and leaves me a poor Cobbler’s Stall.
All I’ve got to say, CHARLIE, is this. If so be Nature meant all that there,
She must be a fair “J.” as a mater. I’ve bin bested out of my share.
So has BUGGINS, and nine out o’ ten on us. If the few nobble the quids
Spite of Nature, wy Nature’s a noodle as cannot purtect her own kids.
Poor BUGGINS! He’s nuts upon HENERY GEORGE, WILLIAM MORRIS, and such.
He’s got a white face, and is humpy, and lives in a sort of a hutch
Smellin’ strong of wax-end and stale dubbin. Him born free and equal? Great SCOTT!
’Bout as free as a trained flea in harness, or sueties piled in a pot.
Nature’s nothink, dear boy, simply nothink, and natural right don’t exist,
Unless it means natural flyness, or natural power of fist.
It’s brains and big biceps, wot wins. Is men equal in muscle and pith?
Arsk BISMARCK and DERBY, dear boy, or arsk JACKSON the Black and JEM SMITH.
There’d be precious few larks if they wos, CHARLIE—where’d be the chance of a spree
If every pious old pump or young mug was the equal of Me?
It’s the up-and-down bizness of life, mate, as makes it such fun—for the ups.
Equal? Yus, as old BARNUM and BUGGINS, or tigers and tarrier pups.
He’s a long-winded lot, is BUCHANAN, slops over tremenjous, he do;
Kinder poet, dear boy, I believe, and they always do flop round a few,
Make a rare lot o’ splash and no progress, like ducks in a tub, dontcher know,
But cackle and splutter ain’t swimming; so ROBERT, my nabs, it’s no go.
Men ain’t equal a mite, that’s a moral, and patter won’t level ’em up.
Wy yer might as well talk of a popgun a holding its own with a Krupp.
’Ow the brains and the ochre got fust ladled hout is a bit beyond me,
But to fancy as them as has got ’em will part is dashed fiddle-de-dee.
Normans nicked? Landlords copped? Lawyers fiddled? Quite likely; I dessay they did.
Are they going to hand back the swag arter years? Not a hacre or quid!
Finding’s keeping, and ’olding means ’aving. I wish I’d a spanking estate
Wot my hancestors nailed on the ready. They wouldn’t wipe me orf the slate.
No fear, CHARLIE, my boy! I’d hang on by my eyelids; and so will the nobs,
Despite Mounseer ROOSSO’S palaver or rattletrap rubbish like BOB’S.
As HUXLEY sez, Robbery’s whitewashed by centries of toffdom, dear boy.
Poor pilgarlicks whose forbears wos honest rich perks earn’t expect to enjoy.
Life’s a great game of grab, fur’s I see, CHARLIE. Robbery? Well, call it that.
If you only lay hands on your own, mate, you won’t git remarkable fat.
There isn’t enough to go round and yet give a fair dollop to each,
It’s a fight for front place, and he’s lucky who gets the first bite at the peach.
High priori hideas about Justice, as HUXLEY declares, is all rot.
Fancy tigers dividing a carcase, and portioning each his fair lot!
“Aren’t men better than tigers?" cries BUGGINS. Well, yus, there’s religion and law;
Pooty fakes! But when sharing’s the word they ain’t in it with sheer tooth and claw.
Orful nice to see Science confirming wot I always held. Blow me tight,
If I don’t rayther cotton to HUXLEY; he’s racy, old pal, and he’s right.
The skim-milk of life’s for the many, the lardy few lap up the cream,
And all talk about trimming the balance is rubbish, a mere ROOSSO’S Dream!
Philanterpy’s all very nice as a plaything for soft-’arted toffs,
Kep in bounds it don’t do no great ’arm. Poor old BUGGINS, he flushes and coughs;
Gets hangry, he do, at my talk. I sez, keep on your hair, my good bloke,
Hindignation ain’t good for your chest; cut this Sosherlist cant, or you’ll choke.
Philanterpy squared in a system would play up Old Nick with the Great,
As ’cute Bishop MAGEE sez Religion would do—carried out—with the State.
Oh, when Science and Saintship shake hands, in a sperret of sound common sense,
To chuck over the cant of the Pulpit, by Jingo, old pal, it’s Himmense!
All cop and no blue ain’t my motter; I likes to stand treat to a chum;
And if I wos flush of the ochre, I tell yer I’d make the thing hum.
And there’s lots o’ the rich is good parters; bit here and bit there, dontcher know;
But shake up the Bag and share round, like good pals a pot-lucking? Oh no!
Wot these jokers call Justice means knocking all ’andicap out of life’s race;
“Equal chances all round,” they declare, wouldn’t give equal power and pace!
Wy, no; but if things weren’t made nice for the few with the power and the tin,
The ’andicapped many would be in the ’unt, and some on ’em might win.
Pooty nice state o’ things for the perkers! Luck, Law, and the Longheads, dear boy,
Have arranged the world so that the many must work that the few may enjoy.
These “Equality” jossers would spile it; if arf their reforms they can carry,
The enjoyers will ’ave a rough time, and there won’t be a look in for ’ARRY.
_____
Letters to the Press - continued
or back to the Letters to the Press menu
|
