thegreenmarker

→It is probable that civilized society will, somehow, survive. It will not survive, however, if the course of the ruling class continues in the direction of the present, and of the past forty years. In that direction there lies destruction of rulers and ruled alike. But, during the monstrous wars and revolutions of our time, there has already begun on a vast scale a purge of the ranks of the ruling class. That purge, and the recruitment of new leaders which accompanies it, may be expected to continue until they bring about a change in the present course. Though the change will never lead to the perfect society of our dreams, we may hope that it will permit human beings at least that minimum of moral dignity which alone can justify the strange accident of man’s existence.

→In the light of these obstacles and this tragic dilemma, it would seem that the possibility of scientific political action, even on the part of a section of the élite, which is itself only a small section of society, depends upon favorable and temporary circumstances. From my own acquaintance with history, I should say that these have been most nearly realized at certain periods in the history of Rome, of the Catholic Church, of the Venetian Republic, and of England. They have evidently not existed, up to now, in the present century. Our leaders—not only the governing élites but those other sections of the élites, such as that grown out of the labor movement, which have been moving toward increased power—are for the most part non-scientific and even anti-scientific in their handling of major social issues, while at the same time they have adopted scientific techniques in dealing with narrower problems of mass-manipulation. The programs which they profess, as well as those upon which they act, are devoid of reality in their failure to recognize the general pattern of our age. They are content not simply with myths, but with remnants of outworn myths. They admit no responsibility except to the fiction of the mass, which is only the projection of their own unloosed will to power. Proceeding in this manner, with the material resources devised by physical science at their disposal, they have brought civilization to the most shattering crisis of recorded history.

→A dilemma confronts any section of the élite that tries to act scientifically. The political life of the masses and the cohesion of society demand the acceptance of myths. A scientific attitude toward society does not permit belief in the truth of the myths. But the leaders must profess, indeed foster, belief in the myths, or the fabric of society will crack and they be overthrown. In short, the leaders, if they themselves are scientific, must lie. It is hard to lie all the time in public but to keep privately an objective regard for the truth. Not only is it hard; it is often ineffective, for lies are often not convincing when told with a divided heart. The tendency is for the deceivers to become self-deceived, to believe their own myths. When this happens, they are no longer scientific. Sincerity is bought at the price of truth.

→However much might be accomplished, for itself and for the society it led, by a scientific élite, there are obstacles in the way of scientific political action by an élite, which, if they are not quite insuperable as in the case of the masses, are nevertheless very formidable. It is in general, as we have repeatedly seen, exceedingly difficult for men to be scientific, or logical, about social and political problems. If the élite has an advantage over the masses in this respect through the possession of more knowledge, more time free from the burden of getting food and shelter, and no doubt certain talents also, the members of the élite, in partial compensation, are subject to the inescapable corruptions of power and privilege. Those who have privileges almost always develop false or distorted ideas about themselves. They are under a compulsion to deceive themselves as well as others through some kind of irrational theory which will seek to justify their monopoly of those privileges, rather than to explain the annoying truths about how the privileges are in fact acquired and held.

→It should not be imagined that even the most thoroughly scientific procedures on the part of a ruling class could “solve” all the problems of society. We have already remarked that the broad patterns of social change are established by factors beyond deliberate human control. Scientific action could, therefore, make a difference only within the framework of these general patterns. Many important social problems—permanent peace or permanent economic prosperity, for example—are very probably insoluble. Moreover, a scientific ruling class could never hope to do more than make the best possible use of what was at its disposal: if it led a nation poor in resources and numbers, it and its society might still be crushed no matter how brilliantly scientific its leadership.

→If a considerable section of the élite proceeded more or less scientifically, catastrophic revolutions would be much less likely. It may not be so immediately clear that the elimination of revolutions would promote the welfare of society as a whole. The net result of at least some revolutions would seem to be to the benefit of the masses, at least when measured against the old regimes. However, the point is that a scientific ruling class could avoid catastrophic revolution not by stopping revolutionary change in society but only by guiding the change, controlling it, and thus bringing it about in a more orderly manner. Catastrophic revolutions occur when the conditions that require a drastic change in the social structure are present but the changes themselves are blocked; then, sooner or later, they burst out in full eruption. There is seldom anything inevitable about this process. The broad changes will take place in any event. If they can be carried through without the immeasurable blood and terror and brutality and chaos which are the sure accompaniments of modern mass revolutions, there are few who would be losers. But revolutions will nonetheless certainly come if their causes are not removed; and only a responsible leadership, understanding the laws of society and acting on that understanding, ready to sacrifice as it would have to sacrifice many of its own immediate interests, and blessed, moreover, with not a little luck besides, would have a chance of removing those causes.

→The lessons of history show that a ruling class can seldom continue long in power unless it is prepared to open its ranks to able and ambitious newcomers from below. A scientific ruling class will therefore keep its ranks open; and this will also be to the benefit of the ruled both in providing an outlet for dynamic individuals, and even more through permitting a greater expansion of creative social energies. Political liberty, too, in the longer run, usually aids both rulers and ruled. We have already seen that this is so from the point of view of the ruled; from the side of the rulers, liberty is a safeguard against bureaucratic degeneration, a check on errors, and a protection against revolution.

→Under some circumstances this would undoubtedly be the sensible attitude on the part of the ruled. Nevertheless, there is often a certain correlation between the interests of the ruler and the ruled in spite of the fact that the primary goal of the rulers is to serve their own interest. Examples are not at all hard to find. Everyone will doubtless admit that James C. Petrillo runs the Musicians’ Union first of all to his own benefit; and, if the published reports of his salary and other perquisites of office are correct, he does very well by himself. However, it is also plain enough that his regime has greatly improved the economic lot of the musician members of the union. During the 5th century in Athens, or in the Roman Empire, the ruled and the rulers flourished together and together met disaster, and so it often happens. The fate of an entire society is frequently—whether one likes it or not, and unjust as it may seem usually to be—bound up with the fate of its ruling class. The collapse of the French ruling class a few years ago meant a harsh tragedy for the entire French people, blameless as the French masses might properly be considered from a moral standpoint. Surely it would have been better for the French people if they had been ruled by an élite which knew its business, knew, among other things, how to keep itself in social power, and which was firm enough to take the necessary steps to do so. If the generals are no good, the army will be defeated; but the soldiers also—in fact, primarily—will be the ones who are slaughtered. A society—a city or a nation or an empire—may become as a whole so thoroughly rotten that it is better that it should be destroyed as a social organism; but this too is seldom fortunate for the individual members of the society, ruled as well as rulers.

→We have seen that the primary real goal of every ruling group is the maintenance of its own power and privilege. Scientific conduct on the part of the group would not destroy this social fact, but, on the contrary, would require the group to recognize it frankly, and to take appropriate steps to insure power and privilege. Would it not seem, then, that scientific rulers would be the worst of all, that a scientific ruling class would mean in practice an eternal tyranny? Should the ruled not rather rejoice at every error, every illusion, every absurdity of the rulers?

→In short, a scientific ruling group would not guide its political actions by myths. We must, however, repeat that our concern is only with political actions. Just as a man thoroughly scientific in the field of physics can accept the most naïve myths in the field of politics, so can another whose political actions are consistently scientific nevertheless believe all sorts of myths in other fields. We find a remarkable demonstration of this in the history of the Catholic Church. The upper hierarchy of the Church advocates and presumably believes very many non-scientific theories. However, since the time when St. Augustine made the wonderfully useful distinction between the “City of God” and the “City of Man,” this has not prevented the hierarchy, on frequent occasions and sometimes for centuries together, from acting scientifically in the field of organization and politics.

→It would mean, as always when conduct is scientific, that the section in question would pursue consciously understood and deliberately chosen goals. The goals would have to be real and possible. From these conditions it follows that the choice of alternative goals would be confined within very narrow limits. All utopias would be excluded, all those mirages of permanent and universal peace and plenty and joy. Moreover, since the general pattern of social development is determined by technological change and by other factors quite beyond the likelihood of human control, a scientific élite would have to accept that general pattern. It was an illusion, in 1800, to think that society could revive the social structure appropriate to the pre-steam-engine era; so today is it an illusion to dream that the 19th century structure can be retained on the technological basis of the assembly line, the airplane, electricity, and radio. From this point of view, we may say that a scientific élite would have to be “opportunist”—not in the narrower sense in which opportunism means taking the easiest course today with no clear thought of tomorrow, but in the broader perspective of not trying to buck the main stream of development, not fighting for causes that are already lost when the battle begins.

→What exactly would this mean, for the rulers or some other section of the élite to be scientific about political affairs? And, if they were, would it be to the benefit of society as a whole?

→The deficiencies can all be overcome in the case of sections of the élite. These are comparatively small in size. Their members can and do acquire a good deal of knowledge about administration and rule. Since their members either inherit or discover a way of extracting a living from others without too much effort on their own part, they have available time and energy in which to cultivate political skills. They are careful not to overburden their ranks with squeamish idealists. There would thus seem to be no theoretic reason why sections of the élite should not be scientific about political affairs. If our reference is to the governing élite, we are asking whether rulers can rule scientifically; and the answer would seem to be that, up to a certain point, they can. We may add that, at certain periods in certain societies, they have done so, or come close to it.

→The inability of the masses to function scientifically in politics rests primarily on the following factors: the huge size of the mass group, which makes it too unwieldy for the use of scientific techniques; the ignorance, on the part of the masses, of the methods of administration and rule; the necessity, for the masses, of spending most of their energies on the bare making of a living, which leaves little energy or time for gaining more knowledge about politics or carrying out practical political tasks; the lack, in most people, of a sufficient degree of those psychological qualities—ambition, ruthlessness, and so on—that are prerequisites for active political life.

→This sort of group constitutes a section of the élite, and there seems in general to be no reason why sections of the élite cannot function scientifically, at least within limits.

→It is to be observed in these latter cases that ordinarily the single individual is not operating as an isolated unit. There are associated with him various other individuals, together forming a group more or less large. The most conspicuous individual may become premier or king or dictator; but power is really acquired by the group, not by any single individual. Nowadays these groups will include, as a rule, certain experts in propaganda, public relations, and organizational skills, as well as one or more “theoreticians.”

→There is little doubt that an individual can conduct his political affairs scientifically or logically. For example, an individual, granted certain capacities and some luck, can decide to rise in the social scale, and can take appropriate steps that will have a fair chance of achieving that aim. In some cases, individuals can, by deliberate scientific means, rise into the very top rank of social and political power.

→There remains, then, the question whether some sections of the élite can act scientifically about political affairs. It is necessary to raise the question in this modified form, rather than about the élite as a whole, because the élite is not ordinarily a homogeneous group.

→The words of the politicians do, however, reach the masses; and when the politicians say these things, it is not absurd but ominous. When it is accepted that the rulers rule as the mere agents for the will of the masses, then their rule becomes irresponsible. The rulers are no longer personally accountable for their actions: they may go to war, persecute, steal, violate freedoms, fail to prepare for social or military crises, and yet never be brought to task for whatever crime or failure—they have only, they say, carried out the people’s will; if the masses are stupid or selfish or easy-going or short-sighted, who are their humble rulers to be blamed? [*] Small wonder that rulers do not encourage the growth of a science of politics!

→It is ludicrous for the authors of books like this one—that is, serious books about society—to pretend to speak to “the people.” The great bulk of the people in this country neither buys nor reads any books at all—thereby avoiding a great quantity of nonsense. The potential audience for this sort of book is, as statistics show, limited to a comparatively small section of the élite.[*] The absurdity does not at all prevent the authors from covering page after page with rhetorical advice to the masses about what they can and should do to run society for their own welfare and interest.