Historical Inevitability

Page 1 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

UniversityPressScholarshipOnlineOxfordScholarshipOnline

Liberty:Incorporating'FourEssaysonLiberty'IsaiahBerlinandHenryHardy

Printpublicationdate:2002PrintISBN-13:9780199249893PublishedtoOxfordScholarshipOnline:November2003DOI:10.1093/019924989X.001.0001

HistoricalInevitabilityIsaiahBerlin

DOI:10.1093/019924989X.003.0003

AbstractandKeywords

Berlin'spositioninPoliticalIdeaspostulatedahumanabilitytomakefreechoices.HislectureHistoricalInevitabilityattackeddeterminismasafoundationoftheviewthattheworldhasadirectionandthatsocietyisgovernedbydeterministiclaws.Instead,Berlinsuggestedthatdeterminismwasimplausible,becauseitwouldrequireradicalchangesinourmoralandpsychologicalcategories.

Keywords:IsaiahBerlin,categories,determinism,freechoice,Inevitability,law

...thosevastimpersonalforces...

T.S.Eliot1

IWritingsometenyearsago2inhisplaceofrefugeduringtheGermanoccupationof

Historical Inevitability

Page 2 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

northernItaly,BernardBerensonsetdownhisthoughtsonwhathecalledtheAccidentalViewofHistory:theyledme,hedeclared,farfromthedoctrine,lappedupinmyyouth,abouttheinevitabilityofeventsandtheMolochstilldevouringustoday,historicalinevitability.Ibelievelessandlessinthesemorethandoubtfulandcertainlydangerousdogmas,whichtendtomakeusacceptwhateverhappensasirresistibleandfoolhardytooppose.3Thefamouscritic'swordsareparticularlytimelyatamomentwhenthereis,atanyrateamongphilosophersofhistory,ifnotamonghistorians,atendencytoreturntotheancientviewthatallthatis,is(objectivelyviewed)best;thattoexplainis(inthelastresort)tojustify;orthattoknowallistoforgiveall;ringingfallacies(charitablydescribedashalftruths)whichhaveledtospecialpleadingand,indeed,obfuscationoftheissueonaheroicscale.

ThisisthethemeonwhichIshouldliketospeak;butbeforedoingsoImustexpressmygratitudeforthehonourdonemebytheinvitationtodeliverthis,thefirstoftheAugusteComteMemorialLectures.For,indeed,Comteisworthyofcommemorationandpraise.Hewasinhisowndayaverycelebratedthinker,andifhisworksaretodayseldommentioned,atanyrateinthiscountry,thatispartlyduetothefactthathehas(p.95)donehisworktoowell.ForComte'sviewshaveaffectedthecategoriesofourthoughtmoredeeplythaniscommonlysupposed.Ourviewofthenaturalsciences,ofthematerialbasisofculturalevolution,ofallthatwecallprogressive,rational,enlightened,Western;ourviewoftherelationshipsofinstitutionsandofpublicsymbolismandceremonialtotheemotionallifeofindividualsandsocieties,andconsequentlyourviewofhistoryitself,owesagooddealtohisteachingandhisinfluence.Hisgrotesquepedantry,theunreadabledullnessofmuchofhiswriting,hisvanity,hiseccentricity,hissolemnity,thepathosofhisprivatelife,hisdogmatism,hisauthoritarianism,hisphilosophicalfallacies,allthatisbizarreandUtopianinhischaracterandwritings,neednotblindustohismerits.Thefatherofsociologyisbynomeanstheludicrousfigureheistoooftenrepresentedasbeing.Heunderstoodtheroleofnaturalscienceandthetruereasonsforitsprestigebetterthanmostcontemporarythinkers.Hesawnodepthinmeredarkness;hedemandedevidence;heexposedshams;hedenouncedintellectualimpressionism;hefoughtmanymetaphysicalandtheologicalmythologies,someofwhich,butfortheblowshestruck,mighthavebeenwithusstill;heprovidedweaponsinthewaragainsttheenemiesofreason,manyofwhicharefarfromobsoletetoday.Aboveallhegraspedthecentralissueofallphilosophythedistinctionbetweenwords(orthoughts)thatareaboutwords,andwords(orthoughts)thatareaboutthings,andtherebyhelpedtolaythefoundationofwhatisbestandmostilluminatinginmodernempiricism;and,ofcourse,hemadeagreatmarkonhistoricalthinking.Hebelievedintheapplicationofscientific,thatis,naturalistic,canonsofexplanationinallfields:andsawnoreasonwhytheyshouldnotapplytorelationsofhumanbeingsaswellasrelationsofthings.

Thisdoctrinewasnotoriginal,andbyhistimegrowingsomewhatoutofdate;thewritingsofVicohadbeenrediscovered;Herderhadtransformedtheconceptsofnation,societyandculture;RankeandMicheletwerechangingboththeartandthescienceofhistory.Thenotionthathumanhistorycouldbeturnedintoanaturalsciencebytheextensionto

Historical Inevitability

Page 3 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

humanbeingsofakindofsociologicalzoology,analogoustothestudyofbeesandbeavers,whichCondorcethadsoardentlyadvocatedandsoconfidentlyprophesiedthissimplebehaviourismhadprovokedareactionagainstitself.Itwasseentobeadistortionofthefacts,adenialoftheevidenceofdirectexperience,adeliberatesuppressionofmuch(p.96) ofwhatweknewaboutourselves,ourmotives,purposes,choices,perpetratedinordertoachievebyhookorbycrookasingle,unitarymethodinallknowledge.ComtedidnotcommittheenormitiesofaLaMettrieoraBchner.Hedidnotsaythathistorywas,orwasreducibleto,akindofphysics;buthisconceptionofsociologypointedinthatdirectionofonecompleteandallembracingpyramidofscientificknowledge;onemethod;onetruth;onescaleofrational,scientificvalues.Thisnavecravingforunityandsymmetryattheexpenseofexperienceiswithusstill.

IIThenotionthatonecandiscoverlargepatternsorregularitiesintheprocessionofhistoricaleventsisnaturallyattractivetothosewhoareimpressedbythesuccessofthenaturalsciencesinclassifying,correlating,andaboveallpredicting.Theyconsequentlyseektoextendhistoricalknowledgetofillgapsinthepast(and,attimes,tobuildintothelimitlessgapofthefuture)byapplyingscientificmethod:bysettingforth,armedwithametaphysicalorempiricalsystem,fromsuchislandsofcertain,orvirtuallycertain,knowledgeofthefactsastheyclaimtopossess.Andnodoubtagreatdealhasbeendone,andwillbedone,inhistoricalasinotherfieldsbyarguingfromtheknowntotheunknown,orfromthelittleknowntotheevenlessknown.1But(p.97) whatevervaluetheperceptionofpatternsoruniformitiesmayhaveinstimulatingorverifyingspecifichypothesesaboutthepastorthefuture,ithasplayed,andisincreasinglyplaying,anotherandmoredubiousroleindeterminingtheoutlookofourtime.Ithasaffectednotmerelywaysofobservinganddescribingtheactivitiesandcharactersofhumanbeings,butmoralandpoliticalandreligiousattitudestowardsthem.Foramongthequestionswhichareboundtoariseinanyconsiderationofhowandwhyhumanbeingsactandliveastheydoarequestionsofhumanmotiveandresponsibility.

Indescribinghumanbehaviourithasalwaysbeenartificialandoverausteretoomitquestionsofthecharacter,purposesandmotivesofindividuals.Andinconsideringtheseoneautomaticallyevaluatesnotmerelythedegreeandkindofinfluenceofthisorthatmotiveorcharacteruponwhathappens,butalsoitsmoralorpoliticalqualityintermsofwhateverscaleofvaluesoneconsciouslyorsemiconsciouslyacceptsinone'sthoughtoraction.Howdidthisorthatsituationarise?Whoorwhatwasoris(orwillbe,orcouldbe)responsibleforawar,arevolution,aneconomiccollapse,arenaissanceofartsandletters,adiscoveryoraninventionoraspiritualtransformationalteringthelivesofmen?Itisbynowafamiliarstorythatthereexistpersonalandimpersonaltheoriesofhistory.Ontheonehand,therearetheoriesaccordingtowhichthelivesofentirepeoplesandsocietieshavebeendecisivelyinfluencedbyexceptionalindividuals1or,alternatively,doctrinesaccordingtowhichwhathappensoccursasaresultnotofthewishesandpurposesofidentifiableindividuals,butofthoseoflargenumbersofunspecifiedpersons,withthequalificationthatthesecollectivewishesandgoalsarenotsolelyorevenlargelydeterminedbyimpersonalfactors,andarethereforenotwhollyorevenlargely

Historical Inevitability

Page 4 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

deduciblefromknowledgeofnaturalforcesalone,suchasenvironment,orclimate,orphysical,physiologicalandpsychologicalprocesses.Oneitherview,itbecomesthe(p.98)businessofhistorianstoinvestigatewhowantedwhat,andwhen,andwhere,inwhatway;howmanymenavoidedorpursuedthisorthatgoal,andwithwhatintensity;and,further,toaskunderwhatcircumstancessuchwantsorfearshaveprovedeffective,andtowhatextent,andwithwhatconsequences.

Againstthiskindofinterpretation,intermsofthepurposesandcharactersofindividuals,thereisaclusterofviews(towhichtheprogressofthenaturalscienceshasgivenagreatandgrowingprestige)accordingtowhichallexplanationsintermsofhumanintentionsstemfromamixtureofvanityandstubbornignorance.Theseviewsrestontheassumptionthatbeliefintheimportanceofthemotivesisdelusive;thatthebehaviourofmenisinfactmadewhatitisbycauseslargelybeyondthecontrolofindividuals;forinstancebytheinfluenceofphysicalfactorsorofenvironmentorofcustom;orbythenaturalgrowthofsomelargerunitarace,anation,aclass,abiologicalspecies;or(accordingtosomewriters)bysomeentityconceivedinevenlessempiricaltermsaspiritualorganism,areligion,acivilisation,aHegelian(orBuddhist)WorldSpirit;entitieswhosecareersormanifestationsoneartharetheobjecteitherofempiricalorofmetaphysicalenquiries,dependingonthecosmologicaloutlookofparticularthinkers.

Thosewhoinclinetothiskindofimpersonalinterpretationofhistoricalchange,whetherbecausetheybelievethatitpossessesgreaterscientificvalue(thatis,enablesthemtopredictthefutureorretrodictthepastmoresuccessfullyorprecisely),orbecausetheybelievethatitembodiessomecrucialinsightintothenatureoftheuniverse,arecommittedbyittotracingtheultimateresponsibilityforwhathappenstotheactsorbehaviourofimpersonalortranspersonalorsuperpersonalentitiesorforceswhoseevolutionisidentifiedwithhumanhistory.Itistruethatthemorecautiousandclearheadedamongsuchtheoriststrytomeettheobjectionsofempiricallymindedcriticsbyadding,inafootnoteorasanafterthought,that,whatevertheirterminology,theyareonnoaccounttobetakentobelievethatthereliterallyexistsuchcreaturesascivilisationsorracesorspiritsofnationslivingsidebysidewiththeindividualswhocomposethem;andtheyaddthattheyfullyrealisethatallinstitutionsinthelastanalysisconsistofindividualmenandwomen,andarenotthemselvespersonalitiesbutonlyconvenientdevicesidealisedmodels,ortypes,orlabels,ormetaphorsdifferentwaysofclassifying,grouping,explainingorpredictingthepropertiesorbehaviourofindividualhuman(p.99) beingsintermsoftheirmoreimportant(thatis,historicallyeffective)empiricalcharacteristics.Neverthelesstheseprotestationstoooftenturnouttobemerelipservicetoprincipleswhichthosewhoprofessthemdonotreallybelieve.Suchwritersseldomwriteorthinkasiftheytookthesedeflationarycaveatsoverseriously;andthemorecandidornaveamongthemdonotevenpretendtosubscribetothem.Thusnationsorculturesorcivilisations,forSchellingorHegel(andSpengler;andoneisinclined,thoughsomewhathesitantly,toaddToynbee),arecertainlynotmerelyconvenientcollectivetermsforindividualspossessingcertaincharacteristicsincommon;butseemmorerealandmoreconcretethantheindividualswhocomposethem.Individualsremainabstractpreciselybecausetheyaremereelementsoraspects,

Historical Inevitability

Page 5 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

momentsartificiallyabstractedforadhocpurposes,andliterallywithoutreality(or,atanyrate,historicalorphilosophicalorrealbeing)apartfromthewholesofwhichtheyformapart,muchasthecolourofathing,oritsshape,oritsvalueareelementsorattributesormodesoraspectsofconcreteobjectsisolatedforconvenience,andthoughtofasexistingindependently,ontheirown,onlybecauseofsomeweaknessorconfusionintheanalysingintellect.

MarxandMarxistsaremoreambiguous.Wecannotbequitesurewhattomakeofsuchacategoryasasocialclasswhoseemergenceandstruggles,victoriesanddefeats,conditionthelivesofindividuals,sometimesagainst,andmostoftenindependentlyof,suchindividuals'consciousorexpressedpurposes.Classesareneverproclaimedtobeliterallyindependententities:theyareconstitutedbyindividualsintheir(mainlyeconomic)interaction.Yettoseektoexplain,orputamoralorpoliticalvalueon,theactionsofindividualsbyexaminingsuchindividualsonebyone,eventothelimitedextenttowhichsuchexaminationispossible,isconsideredbyMarxiststobenotmerelyimpracticableandtimewasting(asindeeditmaybe),butabsurdinamorefundamentalsensebecausethetrue(ordeeper)causesofhumanbehaviourlienotinthespecificcircumstancesofanindividuallifeorintheindividual'sthoughtsorvolitions(asapsychologistorbiographerornovelistmightdescribethem),butinapervasiveinterrelationshipbetweenavastvarietyofsuchliveswiththeirnaturalandmanmadeenvironment.Mendoastheydo,andthinkastheythink,largelyasafunctionoftheinevitableevolutionoftheclassasawholefromwhichitfollowsthatthehistoryand(p.100) developmentofclassescanbestudiedindependentlyofthebiographiesoftheircomponentindividuals.Itisthestructureandtheevolutionoftheclassalonethat(causally)mattersintheend.Thisis,mutatismutandis,similartothebeliefintheprimacyofcollectivepatternsheldbythosewhoattributeactivepropertiestoraceorculture,whethertheybebenevolentinternationalistslikeHerderwhothoughtthatdifferentpeoplescanandshouldadmire,loveandassistoneanotherasindividualscananddo,becausepeoplesareinsomesenseindividuals(orsuperindividuals);orbytheferociouschampionsofnationalorracialselfassertionandwar,likeGobineauorHoustonStewartChamberlainorHitler.Andthesamenote,sometimesmildandcivilised,sometimesharshlyaggressive,isheardinthevoicesofallthoseupholdersofcollectivistmystiqueswhoappealfromindividualtotradition,ortothecollectiveconsciousness(orUnconscious)ofaraceoranationoraculture,or,likeCarlyle,feelthatabstractnounsdeservecapitalletters,andtellusthatTraditionorHistory(orthepast,orthespecies,orthemasses)iswiserthanwe,orthatthegreatsocietyofthequickandthedead,ofourancestorsandofgenerationsyetunborn,haslargerpurposesthananysinglecreature,purposesofwhichourlivesarebutapunyfragment,andthatwebelongtothislargerunitywiththedeepestandperhapsleastconsciouspartsofourselves.1Therearemanyversionsof(p.101) thisbelief,withvaryingproportionsofempiricismandmysticism,tenderandtoughmindedness,optimismandpessimism,collectivismandindividualism;butwhatallsuchviewshaveincommonisthefundamentaldistinctiononwhichtheyrest,between,ontheonehand,realandobjective,and,ontheother,subjectiveorarbitraryjudgements,basedrespectivelyonacceptanceorrejectionofthisultimatelymysticalactofselfidentificationwitharealitywhichtranscendsempirical

Historical Inevitability

Page 6 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

experience.

ForBossuet,forHegel,forMarx,1forSpengler(andforalmostallthinkersforwhomhistoryismorethanpastevents,namelyatheodicy)thisrealitytakesontheformofanobjectivemarchofhistory.Theprocessmaybethoughtofasbeingintimeandspaceorbeyondthem;asbeingcyclicalorspiralorrectilinear,orasoccurringintheformofapeculiarzigzagmovement,sometimescalleddialectical;ascontinuousanduniform,orirregular,brokenbysuddenleapstonewlevels;asduetothechangingformsofonesingleforce,ortoconflictingelementslocked(asinsomeancientmyth)inaneternalPyrrhicstruggle;asthehistoryofonedeityorforceorprinciple,orofseveral;asbeingdestinedtoendwellorbadly;asholdingouttohumanbeingstheprospectofeternalbeatitude,oreternaldamnation,orbothinturn,orneither.Butwhateverversionofthestoryisacceptedanditisneverascientific,thatis,empiricallytestabletheory,statedinquantitativeterms,stilllessadescriptionofwhatoureyesseeandourearshear2themoralofitisalwaysoneandthesame:thatwemustlearntodistinguishtherealcourseofthingsfromthedreamsandfanciesandrationalisationswhichweconstructunconsciouslyforoursolaceoramusement;forthesemaycomfortusforawhile,butwillbetrayuscruellyintheend.Thereis,wearetold,anatureofthings,andithasapatternintime:Thingsandactionsarewhat(p.102) theyare,saidasoberEnglishphilosopherovertwocenturiesago,andtheconsequencesofthemwillbewhattheywillbe:whythenshouldwedesiretobedeceived?1

What,then,mustwedotoavoiddeception?Attheveryleastifwecannotswallowthenotionofsuperpersonalspiritsorforceswemustadmitthatalleventsoccurindiscoverable,uniform,unalteringpatterns;forifsomedidnot,howcouldwefindthelawsofsuchoccurrences?Andwithoutuniversalorderasystemoftruelawshowcouldhistorybeintelligible?Howcoulditmakesense,havemeaning,bemorethanapicaresqueaccountofasuccessionofrandomepisodes,amerecollection(asDescartes,forthisveryreason,seemstohavethought)ofoldwives'tales?Ourvalueswhatwethinkgoodandbad,importantandtrivial,rightandwrong,nobleandcontemptiblealltheseareconditionedbytheplaceweoccupyinthepattern,onthemovingstair.Wepraiseandblame,worshipandcondemnwhateverfitsordoesnotfittheinterestsandneedsandidealsthatweseektosatisfytheendsthat(beingmadeasweare)wecannothelppursuingaccordingtoourlights,thatis,ourownperceptionofourcondition,ourplaceinNature.Suchattitudesareheldtoberationalandobjectivetothedegreetowhichweperceivethisconditionaccurately,thatis,understandwhereweareintermsofthegreatworldplan,themovementwhoseregularitieswediscernaswellasourhistoricalsenseandknowledgepermit.Toeachconditionandgenerationitsownperspectivesonthepastandfuture,dependinguponwhereithasarrived,whatithasleftbehind,andwhitheritismoving;itsvaluesdependonthissameawareness.TocondemntheGreeksortheRomansortheAssyriansortheAztecsforthisorthatfollyorvicemaybenotmorethantosaythatwhattheydidorwishedorthoughtconflictswithourownviewoflife,whichmaybethetrueorobjectiveviewforthestagewhichwehavereached,andwhichisperceivedlessormoreclearlyaccordingtothedepthandaccuracyofourunderstandingofwhatthisstageis,andofthemannerinwhichitis

Historical Inevitability

Page 7 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

developing.IftheRomansandtheAztecsjudgeddifferentlyfromus,theymayhavejudgednolesswellandtrulyandobjectively,tothedegreetowhichtheyunderstoodtheirownconditionandtheirownverydifferentstageofdevelopment.Forustocondemn(p.103) theirscaleofvaluesisvalidenoughforourcondition,whichisthesoleframeofreferencewehave.Andiftheyhadknownustheymighthavecondemnedusasharshlyand,becausetheircircumstancesandvalueswerewhattheyinevitablywere,withequalvalidity.

Accordingtothisviewthereisnothing,nopointofrestoutsidethegeneralmovement,whereweortheycantakeupastand,nostaticabsolutestandardsintermsofwhichthingsandpersonscanbefinallyevaluated.Hencetheonlyattitudescorrectlydescribed,andrightlycondemned,asrelative,subjectiveandirrationalareformsoffailuretorelateourjudgementtoourowntruestinterests,thatis,towhatwillfulfilournaturesmostfullytoallthatthenextstepinourinevitabledevelopmentnecessarilyholdsinstore.Somethinkersofthisschoolviewsubjectiveaberrationswithcompassionandcondonethemastemporaryattitudesfromwhichtheenlightenmentofthefuturewillhenceforwardpreservemankind.Othersgloatexultantlyorironicallyovertheinevitabledoomofthosewhomisinterpret,andthereforefallfoulof,theinexorablemarchofevents.Butwhetherthetoneischaritableorsardonic,whetheronecondemnstheerrorsoffoolishindividualsortheblindmob,orapplaudstheirinevitableannihilation,thisattituderestsonthebeliefthateverythingiscausedtooccurasitdoesbythemachineryofhistoryitselfbytheimpersonalforcesofclass,race,culture,History,Reason,theLifeForce,Progress,theSpiritoftheAge.Giventhisorganisationofourlives,whichwedidnotcreate,andcannotalter,it,anditalone,isultimatelyresponsibleforeverything.Toblameorpraiseindividualsorgroupsofindividualsforactingrightlyorwrongly,sofarasthisentailsasuggestionthattheyareinsomesensegenuinelyfreetochoosebetweenalternatives,andmaythereforebejustlyandreasonablyblamedorpraisedforchoosingastheydidanddo,isavastblunder,areturntosomeprimitiveornaiveconceptionofhumanbeingsasbeingablesomehowtoevadetotaldeterminationoftheirlivesbyforcesnaturalorsupernatural,arelapseintoachildishanimismwhichthestudyoftherelevantscientificormetaphysicalsystemshouldswiftlydispel.Forifsuchchoiceswerereal,thedeterminedworldstructurewhichalone,onthisview,makescompleteexplanation,whetherscientificormetaphysical,possiblecouldnotexist.Andthisisruledoutasunthinkable,reasonrejectsit,itisconfused,delusive,superficial,apieceofpuerilemegalomania,prescientific,unworthyofcivilisedmen.

(p.104) Thenotionthathistoryobeyslaws,whethernaturalorsupernatural,thateveryeventofhumanlifeisanelementinanecessarypattern,hasdeepmetaphysicalorigins:infatuationwiththenaturalsciencesfeedsthisstream,butisnotitssoleor,indeed,itsprincipalsource.Inthefirstplacethereistheteleologicaloutlookwhoserootsreachbacktothebeginningsofhumanthought.Itoccursinmanyversions,butwhatiscommontothemallisthebeliefthatmen,andalllivingcreaturesandperhapsinanimatethingsaswell,notmerelyareastheyare,buthavefunctionsandpursuepurposes.Thesepurposesareeitherimposeduponthembyacreatorwhohasmadeeverypersonandthingtoserveeachaspecificgoal;orelsethesepurposesarenot,indeed,imposedbya

Historical Inevitability

Page 8 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

creatorbutare,asitwere,internaltotheirpossessors,sothateveryentityhasanatureandpursuesaspecificgoalwhichisnaturaltoit,andthemeasureofitsperfectionconsistsinthedegreetowhichitfulfilsit.Evil,vice,imperfection,allthevariousformsofchaosanderror,are,onthisview,formsoffrustration,impededeffortstoreachsuchgoals,failuresdueeithertomisfortune,whichputsobstaclesinthepathofselffulfilment,ortomisdirectedattemptstofulfilsomegoalnotnaturaltotheentityinquestion.

Inthiscosmologytheworldofmen(and,insomeversions,theentireuniverse)isasingleallinclusivehierarchy;sothattoexplainwhyeachingredientofitisas,andwhere,andwhenitis,anddoeswhatitdoes,iseoipsotosaywhatitsgoalis,howfaritsuccessfullyfulfilsit,andwhataretherelationsofcoordinationandsubordinationbetweenthegoalsofthevariousgoalpursuingentitiesintheharmoniouspyramidwhichtheycollectivelyform.Ifthisisatruepictureofreality,thenhistoricalexplanation,likeeveryotherformofexplanation,mustconsist,aboveall,intheattributiontoindividuals,groups,nations,speciesoftheirproperplaceintheuniversalpattern.Toknowthecosmicplaceofathingorapersonistosaywhatitisanddoes,andatthesametimewhyitshouldbeanddoasitisanddoes.Hencetobeandtohavevalue,toexistandtohaveafunction(andtofulfilitlessormoresuccessfully)areoneandthesame.Thepattern,anditalone,bringsintobeing,andcausestopassaway,andconferspurpose,thatistosay,valueandmeaning,onallthereis.Tounderstandistoperceivepatterns.Toofferhistoricalexplanationsisnotmerelytodescribeasuccessionofevents,buttomakeitintelligible;tomakeintelligibleistorevealthebasicpatternnotoneofseveralpossiblepatterns,buttheoneuniqueplanwhich,bybeingasitis,fulfilsonlyoneparticular(p.105) purpose,andconsequentlyisrevealedasfittinginaspecifiablefashionwithinthesinglecosmicoverallschemawhichisthegoaloftheuniverse,thegoalinvirtueofwhichaloneitisauniverseatall,andnotachaosofunrelatedbitsandpieces.Themorethoroughlythenatureofthispurposeisunderstood,andwithitthepatternitentailsinthevariousformsofhumanactivity,themoreexplanatoryorilluminatingthedeepertheactivityofthehistorianwillbe.Unlessanevent,orthecharacterofanindividual,ortheactivityofthisorthatinstitutionorgrouporhistoricalpersonage,isexplainedasanecessaryconsequenceofitsplaceinthepattern(andthelarger,thatis,themorecomprehensivetheschema,themorelikelyitistobethetrueone),noexplanationandthereforenohistoricalaccountisbeingprovided.Themoreinevitableaneventoranactionoracharactercanbeexhibitedasbeing,thebetterithasbeenunderstood,theprofoundertheresearcher'sinsight,thenearerwearetotheoneembracing,ultimatetruth.

Thisattitudeisprofoundlyantiempirical.Weattributepurposestoallthingsandpersonsnotbecausewehaveevidenceforthishypothesis;foriftherewereaquestionofevidenceforit,therecouldinprinciplebeevidenceagainstit;andthensomethingsandeventsmightturnouttohavenopurposeandtherefore,inthesenseusedabove,beincapableofbeingfittedintothepattern,thatis,ofbeingexplainedatall;butthiscannotbe,andisrejectedinadvance,apriori.Weareplainlydealingnotwithanempiricaltheorybutwithametaphysicalattitudewhichtakesforgrantedthattoexplainathingtodescribeitasittrulyis,eventodefineitmorethanverbally,thatis,superficiallyisto

Historical Inevitability

Page 9 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

discoveritspurpose.Everythingisinprincipleexplicable,foreverythinghasapurpose,althoughourmindsmaybetoofeebleortoodistraughttodiscoverinanygivencasewhatthispurposeis.Onsuchaviewtosayofthingsorpersonsthattheyexististosaythattheypursuegoals;tosaythattheyexistorarereal,yetliterallylackapurpose,whetherimposedfromoutsideorinherentorinnate,istosaysomethingnotfalse,butliterallyselfcontradictoryandthereforemeaningless.Teleologyisnotatheory,orahypothesis,butacategoryoraframeworkintermsofwhicheverythingis,orshouldbe,conceivedanddescribed.

TheinfluenceofthisattitudeonthewritingofhistoryfromtheepicofGilgameshtothoseenjoyablegamesofpatiencewhichArnoldToynbeeplayswiththepastandfutureofmankindand(p.106) playswithexhilaratingskillandimaginationistoofamiliartoneedemphasis.Itenters,howeverunconsciously,intothethoughtandlanguageofthosewhospeakoftheriseandfallofStatesormovementsorclassesorindividualsasiftheyobeyedsomeirresistiblerhythm,arisingorfallingwaveofsomecosmicriver,atidalebborflowinhumanaffairs,subjecttonaturalorsupernaturallaws;asifdiscoverableregularitieshadbeenimposedonindividualsorsuperindividualsbyaManifestDestiny,asifthenotionoflifeasaplayweremorethanavividmetaphor.1Tothosewhousethisfigurehistoryisapieceorsuccessionofpiecescomicalortragical,alibrettowhoseheroesandvillains,winnersandlosers,speaktheirlinesandsuffertheirfateinaccordancewiththetextconceivedintermsofthembutnotbythem;forotherwisenothingcouldberightlyconceivedastragicalorcomical;nopatternnorulesnoexplanation.Historians,journalists,ordinarymenspeakintheseterms;theyhavebecomepartandparcelofordinaryspeech.Yettotakesuchmetaphorsandturnsofphraseliterally;tobelievethatsuchpatternsarenotinventedbutintuitivelydiscoveredordiscerned,thattheyarenotonlysomeamongmanypossibletuneswhichthesamesoundscanbemadetoyieldtothemusicalear,butareinsomesenseunique;tothinkthatthere(p.107) existsthepattern,thebasicrhythmofhistorysomethingwhichbothcreatesandjustifiesallthatthereisthatistotakethegametooseriously,toseeinitakeytoreality.Certainlyitistocommitoneselftotheviewthatthenotionofindividualresponsibilityis,intheend,anillusion.Noeffort,howeveringenious,toreinterpretthatmuchtormentedexpressionwill,withinateleologicalsystem,restoreitsnormalmeaningtothenotionoffreechoice.Thepuppetsmaybeconsciousandidentifythemselveshappilywiththeinevitableprocessinwhichtheyplaytheirparts;butitremainsinevitable,andtheyremainmarionettes.

Teleologyisnot,ofcourse,theonlymetaphysicsofhistory;sidebysidewithittherehaspersistedadistinctionofappearanceandrealityevenmorecelebratedbutofasomewhatdifferentkind.Fortheteleologicalthinkerallapparentdisorder,inexplicabledisaster,gratuitoussuffering,unintelligibleconcatenationsofrandomeventsareduenottothenatureofthingsbuttoourfailuretodiscovertheirpurpose.Everythingthatseemsuseless,discordant,mean,ugly,vicious,distortedisneeded,ifwebutknewit,fortheharmonyofthewholewhichonlytheCreatoroftheworld,ortheworlditself(ifitcouldbecomewhollyawareofitselfanditsgoals),canknow.Totalfailureisexcludedapriori,foratadeeperlevelallprocesseswillalwaysbeseentoculminateinsuccess;andsince

Historical Inevitability

Page 10 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

theremustalwaysexistaleveldeeperthanthatofanygiveninsight,thereisinprinciplenoempiricaltestofwhatconstitutesultimatesuccessorfailure.Teleologyisaformoffaithcapableofneitherconfirmationnorrefutationbyanykindofexperience;thenotionsofevidence,proof,probabilityandsoonarewhollyinapplicabletoit.

Butthereisasecond,nolesstimehonouredviewaccordingtowhichitisnotgoals,lessormoredimlydiscerned,whichexplainandjustifywhateverhappens,butatimeless,permanent,transcendentreality,above,oroutside,orbeyond;whichisasitisforever,inperfect,inevitable,selfexplainingharmony.Eachelementofitisnecessitatedtobewhatitisbyitsrelationstotheotherelementsandtothewhole.Iftheworlddoesnotappeartomanifestthis,ifwedonotseeactualeventsandpersonsasconnectedwitheachotherbythoserelationsoflogicalnecessitywhichwouldmakeitinconceivablethatanythingcouldbeotherthanitis,thatisduesolelytothefailureofourownvision.Weareblindedbyignorance,stupidity,passion,andthetaskofexplanationinscienceorinhistoryistheattempttoshowthechaosof(p.108) appearancesasanimperfectreflectionoftheperfectorderofreality,sothatoncemoreeverythingfallsintoitsproperplace.Explanationisthediscoveryoftheunderlyingpattern.Theidealisnownotadistantprospectbeckoningallthingsandpersonstowardsselfrealisation,butaselfconsistent,eternal,ultimatestructureofreality,compresenttimelessly,asitwere,withtheconfusedworldofthesenseswhichitcastsasadistortedimageorafeebleshadow,andofwhichitisatoncetheorigin,thecause,theexplanationandthejustification.Therelationofthisrealitytotheworldofappearancesformsthesubjectmatterofallthedepartmentsoftruephilosophyofethics,aesthetics,logic,ofthephilosophyofhistoryandoflawandofpolitics,accordingtotheaspectofthebasicrelationthatisselectedforattention.Butunderallitsvariousnamesformandmatter,theoneandthemany,endsandmeans,subjectandobject,orderandchaos,changeandrest,theperfectandtheimperfect,thenaturalandtheartificial,natureandmindthecentralissue,thatofRealityandAppearance,remainsoneandthesame.Tounderstandtrulyistounderstanditanditalone.Itplaysthepartwhichthenotionoffunctionandpurposeplaysinteleology.Italoneatonceexplainsandjustifies.

Finallythereistheinfluenceofthenaturalsciences.Atfirstthisseemsaparadox:scientificmethodissurelytheverynegationofmetaphysicalspeculation.Buthistoricallytheoneiscloselyinterwovenwiththeother,and,inthefieldofwhichIspeak,showsimportantaffinitieswithit,namely,thenotionthatallthatexistsisnecessarilyanobjectinmaterialnature,andthereforesusceptibletoexplanationbyscientificlaws.IfNewtonwasableinprincipletoexplaineverymovementofeveryparticularconstituentofphysicalnatureintermsofasmallnumberoflawsofgreatgenerality,isitnotreasonabletosupposethatpsychologicalevents,whichconstitutetheconsciousandunconsciouslivesofindividuals,aswellassocialfactstheinternalrelationshipsandactivitiesandexperiencesofsocietiescouldbeexplainedbytheuseofsimilarmethods?Itistruethatweseemtoknowagooddeallessaboutthesubjectmatterofpsychologyandsociologythanaboutthefactsdealtwithbyphysicsorchemistry;butisthereanyobjectioninprincipletotheviewthatasufficientlyscrupulousandimaginativeinvestigationofhumanbeingsmight,oneday,reveallawscapableofyieldingpredictions

Historical Inevitability

Page 11 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

aspowerfulandaspreciseasthosewhicharenowpossibleinthenaturalsciences?Ifpsychologyandsociologyeverattaintotheirproperstatureandwhyshouldthey(p.109) not?weshallhavelawsenablingus,atleastintheory(foritmightstillbedifficultinpractice),topredict(orreconstruct)everydetailinthelivesofeverysinglehumanbeinginthefuture,presentandpast.Ifthisis(assurelyitis)thetheoreticalidealofsuchsciencesaspsychology,sociologyandanthropology,historicalexplanationswill,iftheyaresuccessful,simplyconsistintheapplicationofthelawstheestablishedhypothesesofthesesciencestospecificindividualsituations.Therewillperhapsbepurepsychology,sociology,history,thatis,theprinciplesthemselves;andtherewillbetheirapplication:therewillcomeintobeingsocialmathematics,socialphysics,socialengineering,thephysiologyofeveryfeelingandattitudeandinclination,aspreciseandpowerfulandusefulastheiroriginalsinthenaturalsciences.AndindeedthisistheveryphraseologyandidealofeighteenthcenturyrationalistslikeHolbachandd'AlembertandCondorcet.Themetaphysiciansarevictimsofadelusion;nothinginnatureistranscendent,nothingpurposive;everythingismeasurable;thedaywilldawnwhen,inanswertoallthepainfulproblemsnowbesettingus,weshallbeabletosaywithLeibniz,calculemus,1andreturntheanswersclearly,exactlyandconclusively.

Whatalltheseconceptsmetaphysicalandscientificalikehaveincommon(despitetheirevenvasterdifferences)isthenotionthattoexplainistosubsumeundergeneralformulae,torepresentasexamplesoflawswhichcoveraninfinitenumberofinstances;sothatwithknowledgeofalltherelevantlaws,andofasufficientrangeofrelevantfacts,itwillbepossibletotellnotmerelywhathappens,butalsowhy;for,ifthelawshavebeencorrectlyestablished,todescribesomethingis,ineffect,toassertthatitcannothappenotherwise.ThequestionWhy?forteleologistsmeansInpursuitofwhatunalterablegoal?;forthenonteleologicalmetaphysicalrealistsitmeansDeterminedunalterablybywhatultimatepattern?;andfortheupholdersoftheComteanidealsofsocialstaticsanddynamicsitmeansResultingfromwhatcauses?actualcauseswhichareastheyare,whethertheymighthavebeenotherwiseornot.Theinevitabilityofhistoricalprocesses,oftrends,ofrisesandfalls,ismerelydefactoforthosewhobelievethattheuniverseobeysonlynaturallawswhichmakeit(p.110) whatitis;itisdejureaswellthejustificationaswellastheexplanationforthosewhoseesuchuniformityasnotmerelysomethinggiven,brutefact,somethingunchangeableandunquestionable,butaspatterns,plans,purposes,ideals,asthoughtsinthemindofarationalDeityorUniversalReason,asgoals,asaesthetic,selffulfillingwholes,asmetaphysicalrationales,theologicalotherworldlyjustifications,astheodicies,whichsatisfythecravingtoknownotmerelywhytheworldexists,butwhyitisworthyofexistence;andwhyitisthisparticularworldthatexists,ratherthansomeother,ornoworldatall;thesolutionbeingprovidedintermsofvalueswhichareeithersomehowembeddedinthefactsthemselvesordeterminethemfromsometranscendentheightordepth.Allthesetheoriesare,inonesenseoranother,formsofdeterminism,whethertheybeteleological,metaphysical,mechanistic,religious,aestheticorscientific.Andonecommoncharacteristicofallsuchoutlooksistheimplicationthattheindividual'sfreedomofchoice(atanyratehere,below)isultimatelyanillusion,thatthenotionthathumanbeingscouldhavechosenotherwisethantheydidusuallyrestsuponignoranceoffacts;withtheconsequencethatany

Historical Inevitability

Page 12 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

assertionthattheyshouldhaveactedthusorthus,mighthaveavoidedthisorthat,anddeserve(andnotmerelyelicitorrespondto)praiseorblame,approvalorcondemnation,restsuponthepresuppositionthatsomearea,atanyrate,oftheirlivesisnottotallydeterminedbylaws,whethermetaphysicalortheologicalorexpressingthegeneralisedprobabilitiesofthesciences.Andthisassumption,itisthenmaintained,ispatentlyfalse.Theadvanceofknowledgeconstantlybringsnewareasofexperienceundertheswayoflawswhichmakesystematicinferenceandpredictionpossible.Hencewecan,ifweseektoberational,praiseandcondemn,warnandencourage,advocatejusticeorselfinterest,forgive,condone,makeresolutions,issueorders,feeljustifiedremorse,onlytothedegreetowhichweremainignorantofthetruenatureoftheworld.Themoreweknow,thefarthertheareaofhumanfreedom,andconsequentlyofresponsibility,isnarrowed.Fortheomniscientbeing,whoseeswhynothingcanbeotherwisethanasitis,thenotionsofresponsibilityorguilt,ofrightandwrong,arenecessarilyempty;theyareameremeasureofignorance,ofadolescentillusion;andtheperceptionofthisisthefirstsignofmoralandintellectualmaturity.

Thisdoctrinehastakenseveralforms.Therearethosewhobelievethatmoraljudgementsaregroundlessbecauseweknowtoo(p.111) much,andtherearethosewhobelievethattheyareunjustifiedbecauseweknowtoolittle.Andagain,amongtheformertherearethosewhosedeterminismisoptimisticandbenevolent,andthosewhosedeterminismispessimistic,orelseconfidentofahappyendingyetatthesametimeindignantlyorsardonicallymalevolent.Somelooktohistoryforsalvation;othersforjustice;forvengeance;forannihilation.Amongtheoptimisticaretheconfidentrationalists,inparticulartheheraldsandprophets(fromBacontomodernsocialtheorists)ofthenaturalsciencesandofmaterialprogress,whomaintainthatviceandsufferingareintheendalwaystheproductofignorance.Thefoundationoftheirfaithistheconvictionthatitispossibletofindoutwhatallmenatalltimestrulywant;andalsowhattheycandoandwhatisforeverbeyondtheirpower;and,inthelightofthis,toinvent,discoverandadaptmeanstorealisableends.Weaknessandmisery,follyandvice,moralandintellectualdefectsareduetomaladjustment.Tounderstandthenatureofthingsis(attheveryleast)toknowwhatyou(andotherswho,iftheyarehuman,willbelikeyou)trulywant,andhowtogetit.Allthatisbadisduetoignoranceofendsorofmeans;toattaintoknowledgeofbothisthepurposeandfunctionofthesciences.Thescienceswilladvance;trueendsaswellasefficientmeanswillbediscovered;knowledgewillincrease,menwillknowmore,andthereforebewiserandbetterandhappier.Condorcet,whoseEsquisseisthesimplestandmostmovingstatementofthisbelief,hasnodoubtthathappiness,scientificknowledge,virtueandlibertyareboundasbyanindissolublechain,1whilestupidity,vice,injusticeandunhappinessareformsofadiseasewhichtheadvanceofsciencewilleliminateforever;forwearemadewhatwearebynaturalcauses;andwhenweunderstandthem,thisalonewillsufficetobringusintoharmonywithNature.

Praiseandblamearefunctionsofignorance;wearewhatweare,likestonesandtrees,likebeesandbeavers,andifitisirrationaltoblameordemandjusticefromthingsoranimals,climatesorsoilsorwildbeasts,whentheycauseuspain,itisnolessirrationalto

Historical Inevitability

Page 13 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

blamethenolessdeterminedcharactersoractsofmen.Wecanregretanddeploreandexposethedepthofhumancruelty,injusticeandstupidity,andcomfortourselveswiththecertainty(p.112) thatwiththerapidprogressofournewempiricalknowledgethiswillsoonpassawaylikeanevildream;forprogressandeducation,ifnotinevitable,areatanyratehighlyprobable.Thebeliefinthepossibility(orprobability)ofhappinessastheproductofrationalorganisationunitesallthebenevolentsagesofmoderntimes,fromthemetaphysiciansoftheItalianRenaissancetotheevolutionarythinkersoftheGermanAufklrung,fromtheradicalsandutilitariansofprerevolutionaryFrancetothescienceworshippingvisionariesofthenineteenthandtwentiethcenturies.ItistheheartofalltheUtopiasfromBaconandCampanellatoLessingandCondorcet,SaintSimonandCabet,FourierandOwen,culminatinginthebureaucraticfantasiesofAugusteComte,withhisfanaticallytidyworldofhumanbeingsjoyfullyengagedinfulfillingtheirfunctions,eachwithinhisownrigorouslydefinedprovince,intherationallyordered,totallyunalterablehierarchyoftheperfectsociety.Thesearethebenevolenthumanitarianprophetsourownagehasknownnotafewofthem,fromJulesVerneandH.G.WellsandAnatoleFranceandBernardShawtotheirunnumberedAmericandisciplesgenerouslydisposedtowardsallmankind,genuinelyseekingtorescueeverylivingbeingfromitsburdenofignorance,sorrow,povertyandhumiliatingdependenceonothers.

Theothervariantofthisattitudeisagooddeallessamiableintoneandinfeeling.WhenHegel,andafterhimMarx,describehistoricalprocesses,theytooassumethathumanbeingsandtheirsocietiesarepartandparcelofawidernature,whichHegelregardsasspiritual,andMarxasmaterial,incharacter.Greatsocialforcesareatworkofwhichonlytheacutestandmostgiftedindividualsareeveraware;theordinaryrunofmenareblindinvaryingdegreestothatwhichtrulyshapestheirlives,theyworshipfetishesandinventchildishmythologies,whichtheydignifywiththetitleofviewsortheoriesinordertoexplaintheworldinwhichtheylive.Fromtimetotimetherealforcesimpersonalandirresistiblewhichtrulygoverntheworlddeveloptoapointwhereanewhistoricaladvanceisdue.Then(asbothHegelandMarxnotoriouslybelieved)thecrucialmomentsofadvancearereached;thesetaketheformofviolent,cataclysmicleaps,destructiverevolutionswhich,oftenwithfireandsword,establishaneworderupontheruinsoftheold.Inevitablythefoolish,obsolete,purblind,homemadephilosophiesofthedenizensoftheoldestablishmentareknockedoverandsweptawaytogetherwiththeirpossessors.

(p.113) ForHegel,andforagoodmanyothers,thoughbynomeansall,amongthephilosophersandpoetsoftheromanticmovement,historyisaperpetualstruggleofvastspiritualforcesembodiednowininstitutionsChurches,races,civilisations,empires,nationalStatesnowinindividualsofmorethanhumanstatureworldhistoricalfiguresofboldandruthlessgenius,toweringover,andcontemptuousof,theirpunycontemporaries.ForMarx,thestruggleisafightbetweensociallyconditioned,organisedgroupsclassesshapedbythestruggleforsubsistenceandsurvivalandconsequentlyforthecontrolofpower.Thereisasardonicnote(inaudibleonlytotheirmostbenevolentandsingleheartedfollowers)inthewordsofboththesethinkersastheycontemplatethediscomfitureanddestructionofthephilistines,theordinarymenandwomencaughtin

Historical Inevitability

Page 14 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

oneofthedecisivemomentsofhistory.BothHegelandMarxconjureupanimageofpeacefulandfoolishhumanbeings,largelyunawareoftheparttheyplayinhistory,buildingtheirhomes,withtouchinghopeandsimplicity,uponthegreenslopesofwhatseemstothemapeacefulmountainside,trustinginthepermanenceoftheirparticularwayoflife,theirowneconomic,socialandpoliticalorder,treatingtheirownvaluesasiftheywereeternalstandards,living,working,fightingwithoutanyawarenessofthecosmicprocessesofwhichtheirlivesarebutapassingstage.Butthemountainisnoordinarymountain;itisavolcano;andwhen(asthephilosopheralwaysknewthatitwould)theinevitableeruptioncomes,theirhomesandtheirelaboratelytendedinstitutionsandtheiridealsandtheirwaysoflifeandvalueswillbeblownoutofexistenceinthecataclysmwhichmarkstheleapfromthelowertoahigherstage.Whenthispointisreached,thetwogreatprophetsofdestructionareintheirelement;theyenterintotheirinheritance;theysurveytheconflagrationwithadefiant,almostByronic,ironyanddisdain.Tobewiseistounderstandthedirectioninwhichtheworldisinexorablymoving,toidentifyoneselfwiththerisingpowerwhichushersinthenewworld.Marxanditispartofhisattractiontothoseofasimilaremotionalcastidentifieshimselfexultantly,inhiswaynolesspassionatelythanNietzscheorBakunin,withthegreatforcewhichinitsverydestructivenessiscreative,andisgreetedwithbewildermentandhorroronlybythosewhosevaluesarehopelesslysubjective,wholistentotheirconsciences,theirfeelings,ortowhattheirnursesorteacherstellthem,withoutrealisingthegloriesoflifeinaworldwhichmovesfromexplosiontoexplosiontofulfil(p.114) thegreatcosmicdesign.Whenhistorytakesherrevengeandeveryenragprophetinthenineteenthcenturylookstohertoavengehimagainstthosehehatesmostthemean,pathetic,ludicrous,stiflinghumananthillswillbejustlypulverised;justly,becausewhatisjustandunjust,goodandbad,isdeterminedbythegoaltowardswhichallcreationistending.Whateverisonthesideofvictoriousreasonisjustandwise;whateverisontheotherside,onthesideoftheworldthatisdoomedtodestructionbytheworkingoftheforcesofreason,isrightlycalledfoolish,ignorant,subjective,arbitrary,blind;and,ifitgoessofarastotrytoresisttheforcesthataredestinedtosupplantit,thenitthatistosay,thefoolsandknavesandmediocritieswhoconstituteitisrightlycalledretrograde,wicked,obscurantist,perverselyhostiletothedeepestinterestsofmankind.

Differentthoughthetoneoftheseformsofdeterminismmaybewhetherscientific,humanitarianandoptimisticorfurious,apocalypticandexultanttheyagreeinthis:thattheworldhasadirectionandisgovernedbylaws,andthatthedirectionandthelawscaninsomedegreebediscoveredbyemployingthepropertechniquesofinvestigation;andmoreoverthattheworkingoftheselawscanonlybegraspedbythosewhorealisethatthelives,charactersandactsofindividuals,bothmentalandphysical,aregovernedbythelargerwholestowhichtheybelong,andthatitistheindependentevolutionofthesewholesthatconstitutesthesocalledforcesintermsofwhosedirectiontrulyscientific(orphilosophic)historymustbeformulated.Tofindtheexplanationofwhygivenindividuals,orgroupsofthem,actorthinkorfeelinonewayratherthananother,onemustfirstseektounderstandthestructure,thestateofdevelopmentandthedirectionofsuchwholes,forexample,thesocial,economic,political,religiousinstitutionstowhichsuchindividualsbelong;oncethatisknown,thebehaviouroftheindividuals(orthemost

Historical Inevitability

Page 15 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

characteristicamongthem)shouldbecomealmostlogicallydeducible,anddoesnotconstituteaseparateproblem.Ideasabouttheidentityoftheselargeentitiesorforces,andtheirfunctions,differfromtheoristtotheorist.Race,colour,Church,nation,class;climate,irrigation,technology,geopoliticalsituation;civilisation,socialstructure,theHumanSpirit,theCollectiveUnconscious,totakesomeoftheseconceptsatrandom,haveallplayedtheirpartsintheologicohistoricalsystemsastheprotagonistsuponthestageofhistory.Theyarerepresentedastherealforcesofwhichindividualsare(p.115)ingredients,atonceconstitutive,andthemostarticulateexpressions,ofthisorthatphaseofthem.Thosewhoaremoreclearlyanddeeplyawarethanothersofthepartwhichtheyplay,whetherwillinglyornot,tothatdegreeplayitmoreboldlyandeffectively;thesearethenaturalleaders.Others,ledbytheirownpettypersonalconcernsintoignoringorforgettingthattheyarepartsofacontinuousorconvulsivepatternofchange,aredeludedintoassumingthat(or,atanyrate,intoactingasif)theyandtheirfellowsarestabilisedatsomefixedlevelforever.

Whatthevariantsofeitheroftheseattitudesentail,likeallformsofgenuinedeterminism,istheeliminationofthenotionofindividualresponsibility.Itis,afterall,naturalenoughformen,whetherforpracticalreasonsorbecausetheyaregiventoreflection,toaskwhoorwhatisresponsibleforthisorthatstateofaffairswhichtheyviewwithsatisfactionoranxiety,enthusiasmorhorror.Ifthehistoryoftheworldisduetotheoperationofidentifiableforcesotherthan,andlittleaffectedby,freehumanwillsandfreechoices(whethertheseoccurornot),thentheproperexplanationofwhathappensmustbegivenintermsoftheevolutionofsuchforces.Andthereisthenatendencytosaythatnotindividuals,buttheselargerentities,areultimatelyresponsible.IliveataparticularmomentoftimeinthespiritualandsocialandeconomiccircumstancesintowhichIhavebeencast:howthencanIhelpchoosingandactingasIdo?ThevaluesintermsofwhichIconductmylifearethevaluesofmyclass,orrace,orChurch,orcivilisation,orarepartandparcelofmystationmypositioninthesocialstructure.NobodydeniesthatitwouldbestupidaswellascrueltoblamemefornotbeingtallerthanIam,ortoregardthecolourofmyhairorthequalitiesofmyintellectorheartasbeingdueprincipallytomyownfreechoice;theseattributesareastheyarethroughnodecisionofmine.IfIextendthiscategorywithoutlimit,thenwhateveris,isnecessaryandinevitable.Thisunlimitedextensionofnecessity,onanyoftheviewsdescribedabove,becomesintrinsictotheexplanationofeverything.Toblameandpraise,considerpossiblealternativecoursesofaction,accuseordefendhistoricalfiguresforactingastheydoordid,becomesanabsurdactivity.Admirationandcontemptforthisorthatindividualmayindeedcontinue,butitbecomesakintoaestheticjudgement.Wecaneulogiseordeplore,feelloveorhatred,satisfactionorshame,butwecanneitherblamenorjustify.Alexander,Caesar,Attila,Muhammad,Cromwell,(p.116) Hitlerarelikefloodsandearthquakes,sunsets,oceans,mountains;wemayadmireorfearthem,welcomeorcursethem,buttodenounceorextoltheiractsis(ultimately)assensibleasaddressingsermonstoatree(asFredericktheGreatpointedoutwithhiscustomarypungencyinthecourseofhisattackonHolbach'sSystemofNature).1

(p.117) Toassessdegreesoftheirresponsibility,toattributethisorthatconsequence

Historical Inevitability

Page 16 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

totheirfreedecision,tosetthemupasexamplesordeterrents,toseektoderivelessonsfromtheirlives,becomessenseless.Wecanfeelashamedofouractsorofourstatesofmind,oroftheirs,asahunchbackmaybeashamedofhishump;butwecannotfeelremorse:forthatentailsthebeliefthatwenotonlycouldhaveactedotherwise,butalsocouldhavefreelychosentodoso.Thesemenwerewhattheywere;andsoarewe.Theyactedastheyacted;andsodowe.Theirbehaviourcanbeexplainedintermsofwhateverfundamentalcategoryistobeused,wherebyhistoryisreducibletoanaturalscienceorametaphysicalortheologicalschema.Somuchwecandoforthem,and,toamorelimiteddegree,forourselvesandourcontemporaries.Thisisallthatcanbedone.

Yetweareadjured,oddlyenough,bytoughmindeddeterminists,intheverynameofthescientificstatusofthesubject,toavoidbias;regularappealsaremadetohistorianstorefrainfromsittinginjudgement,toremainobjective,nottoreadthevaluesofthepresentintothepast,oroftheWestintotheEast;nottoadmireorcondemnancientRomansforbeinglikeorunlikemodernAmericans;nottodenouncetheMiddleAgesbecausetheyfailedtopractisetolerationasitwasconceivedbyVoltaire,norapplaudtheGracchibecauseweareshockedbythesocialinjusticesofourtime,orcriticiseCicerobecauseofourownexperienceoflawyersinpolitics.Whatarewetomakeofsuchexhortations,orofthe(p.118) perpetualpleastouseourimaginationorourpowersofsympathyorofunderstandinginordertoavoidtheinjusticethatspringsfromaninsufficientgraspoftheaimsandcodesandcustomsofculturesdistantfromusintimeorspace?Whatmeaninghasthis,saveontheassumptionthattogivemoralpraiseandblame,toseektobejust,isnottotallyirrational,thathumanbeingsdeservejusticeasstocksorstonesdonot,andthatthereforewemustseektobefair,andnotpraiseandblamearbitrarily,ormistakenly,throughignorance,orprejudice,orlackofimagination?Yetoncewetransferresponsibilityforwhathappensfromthebacksofindividualstothecasualorteleologicaloperationofinstitutionsorculturesorpsychicalorphysicalfactors,whatcanbemeantbycallinguponoursympathyorsenseofhistory,orsighingaftertheidealoftotalimpartiality,whichmaynotindeedbefullyattainable,buttowhichsomecomenearerthanothers?FewareaccusedofbiasedaccountsofgeologicalchangesorlackofintuitivesympathyindescribingtheeffectoftheItalianclimateupontheagricultureofancientRome.

Tothisitmaybeansweredthatevenifhistory,likenaturalscience,issatisfactionofcuriosityaboutunalterableprocessesmerelydisfiguredbytheintrusionofmoraljudgementsweshallattainalessadequategraspofeventhebarefactsunlesswehavesomedegreeofimaginativeinsightintowaysoflifealien,orlittleknown,tous.Thisisdoubtlesstrue;butitdoesnotpenetratetotheheartoftheobjectionbroughtagainsthistorianswhoareaccusedofprejudiceorofcolouringtheiraccountstoostrongly.Itmaybe(andhasdoubtlessoftenbeensaid)thatGibbonorMacaulayorTreitschkeorBellocfailtoreproducethefactsaswesuspectthemtohavebeen.Tosaythisis,ofcourse,toaccusethewritersofseriousinadequacyashistorians;butthatisnotthemaingravamenofthecharge.Itisratherthattheyareinsomesensenotmerelyinaccurateorsuperficialorincomplete,butthattheyareunjust;thattheyareseekingtosecureourapprovalforoneside,and,inordertoachievethis,unfairlydenigratetheother;thatin

Historical Inevitability

Page 17 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

dealingwithonesidetheyciteevidenceandusemethodsofinferenceorpresentationwhich,fornogoodreason,theydenytotheother;andthattheirmotivefordoingthisderivesfromtheirconvictionofhowmenshouldbe,andwhattheyshoulddo;andsometimesalsothattheseconvictionsspringfromviewswhich(judgedintermsoftheordinarystandardsandscalesofvaluewhichprevailinthesocietiestowhichtheyandwebelong)aretoo(p.119) narrow;orirrationalorinapplicabletothehistoricalperiodinquestion;andthatbecauseofthistheyhavesuppressedordistortedthetruefacts,astruefactsareconceivedbytheeducatedsocietyoftheir,orour,time.Wecomplain,thatistosay,notmerelyofsuppressionordistortion,butofpropagandistaimstowhichwethinkthismaybedue;andtospeakofpropagandaatall,letaloneassumethatitcanbedangerouslyeffective,istoimplythatthenotionofinjusticeisnotinoperative,thatmarksforconductare,andcanproperlybe,awarded;itisineffecttosaythatImusteitherseeknottopraiseorblameatall,or,ifIcannotavoiddoingsobecauseIamahumanbeingandmyviewsareinevitablyshotthroughwithmoralassessments,Ishouldseektodosojustly,withdetachment,ontheevidence,notblamingmenforfailingtodotheimpossible,andnotpraisingthemforiteither.Andthis,initsturn,entailsbeliefinindividualresponsibilityatanyratesomedegreeofit.Howgreatadegreehowwidetherealmofpossibility,ofalternativesfreelychoosablewilldependonone'sreadingofnatureandhistory;butitwillneverbenothingatall.

Andyetitisthis,itseemstome,thatisvirtuallydeniedbythosehistoriansandsociologists,steepedinmetaphysicalorscientificdeterminism,whothinkitrighttosaythatin(whattheyarefondofcalling)thelastanalysis,everythingorsomuchofitasmakesnodifferenceboilsdowntotheeffectsofclass,orrace,orcivilisation,orsocialstructure.Suchthinkersseemtomecommittedtothebeliefthatalthoughwemaynotbeabletoplottheexactcurveofeachindividuallifewiththedataatourdisposalandthelawsweclaimtohavediscovered,yet,inprinciple,ifwewereomniscient,wecoulddoso,atanyrateinthecaseofothers,aspreciselyasthetechniquesofscientificpredictionwillallow;andthatconsequentlyeventhatminimumresidueofvaluejudgementwhichnoamountofconsciousselfdisciplineandselfeffacementcanwhollyeliminate,whichcoloursandisapartofourverychoiceofhistoricalmaterial,ofouremphasis,howevertentative,uponsomeeventsandpersonsasbeingmoreimportantorinterestingorunusualthanothers,mustbeeithertheresultofourownineluctableconditioning,orelsethefruitofourownincurablevanityandignorance;andineithercaseremainsinpracticeunavoidablethepriceofourhumanstatus,partoftheimperfectionofman;andmustbeacceptedonlybecauseitliterallycannotberejected,becausemenandtheiroutlooksarewhatthey(p.120) are,andmenjudgeastheydo;becausetheyarefinite,andforget,orcannotface,thefactthattheyareso.

Thissternconclusionisnot,ofcourse,actuallyacceptedbyanyworkinghistorian,oranyhumanbeinginhisnontheoreticalmoments;eventhough,paradoxicallyenough,theargumentsbywhichweareledtosuchuntenableconclusions,bystressinghowmuchnarroweristheareaofhumanfreedom,andthereforeofresponsibility,thanitwasbelievedtobeduringtheagesofscientificignorance,havetaughtmanyadmirablelessonsinrestraintandhumility.Buttomaintainthat,sincemenaredetermined,

Historical Inevitability

Page 18 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

history,bywhichImeantheactivityofhistorians,cannot,strictlyspeaking,everbejustorunjustbutonlytrueorfalse,wiseorstupid,istoexpoundanoblefallacy,andonethatcanseldom,ifever,havebeenactedupon.Foritstheoreticalacceptance,howeverhalfhearted,hasledtothedrawingofexceedinglycivilisedconsequences,andcheckedmuchtraditionalcrueltyandinjustice.

IIIThepropositionthateverythingthatwedoandsufferispartofafixedpatternthatLaplace'sobserver(suppliedwithadequateknowledgeoffactsandlaws)couldatanymomentofhistoricaltimedescribecorrectlyeverypastandfutureevent,includingthoseoftheinnerlife,thatis,humanthoughts,feelings,actshasoftenbeenentertained,andverydifferentimplicationshavebeendrawnfromit;beliefinitstruthhasdismayedsomeandinspiredothers.Butwhetherornotdeterminismistrueorevencoherent,itseemsclearthatacceptanceofitdoesnotinfactcolourtheordinarythoughtsofthemajorityofhumanbeings,includinghistorians,noreventhoseofnaturalscientistsoutsidethelaboratory.Forifitdid,thelanguageofthebelieverswouldreflectthisfact,andbedifferentfromthatoftherestofus.

Thereisaclassofexpressionswhichweconstantlyuse(andcanscarcelydowithout),likeYoushouldnot[orneednot]havedonethis;Needyouhavemadethisterriblemistake?;Icoulddoit,butIwouldrathernot;WhydidtheKingofRuritaniaabdicate?Because,unliketheKingofAbyssinia,helackedthestrengthofwilltoresist;MusttheCommanderinChiefbequitesostupid?Expressionsofthistypeplainlyinvolvethenotionofmorethanthemerelylogicalpossibilityoftherealisationofalternativesother(p.121) thanthosewhichwereinfactrealised,namelyofdifferencesbetweensituationsinwhichindividualscanbereasonablyregardedasbeingresponsiblefortheiracts,andthoseinwhichtheycannot.Fornoonewillwishtodenythatwedooftenargueaboutthebestamongthepossiblecoursesofactionopentohumanbeingsinthepresentandpastandfuture,infictionandindreams;thathistorians(anddetectivesandjudgesandjuries)doattempttoestablish,aswellastheyareable,whatthesepossibilitiesare;thatthewaysinwhichtheselinesaredrawnmarkthefrontiersbetweenreliableandunreliablehistory;thatwhatiscalledrealism(asopposedtofancyorignoranceoflifeorUtopiandreams)consistspreciselyintheplacingofwhatoccurred(ormightoccur)inthecontextofwhatcouldhavehappened(orcouldhappen)andinthedemarcationofthisfromwhatcouldnot;thatthisiswhat(asIthinkL.B.Namieroncesuggested)thesenseofhistory,intheend,comesto;thatuponthiscapacityhistorical(aswellaslegal)justicedepends;thatitalonemakesitpossibletospeakofcriticism,orpraiseandblame,asjustordeservedorabsurdorunfair;orthatthisisthesoleandobviousreasonwhyaccidents,forcemajeurebeingunavoidablearenecessarilyoutsidethecategoryofresponsibilityandconsequentlybeyondtheboundsofcriticism,oftheattributionofpraiseandblame.Thedifferencebetweentheexpectedandtheexceptional,thedifficultandtheeasy,thenormalandtheperverse,restsuponthedrawingofthesesamelines.

Allthisseemstooselfevidenttoargue.Itseemssuperfluoustoaddthatallthediscussionsofhistoriansaboutwhetheragivenpolicycouldorcouldnothavebeen

Historical Inevitability

Page 19 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

prevented,andwhatviewshouldthereforebetakenoftheactsandcharactersoftheactors,areintelligibleonlyontheassumptionoftherealityofhumanchoices.Ifdeterminismwereavalidtheoryofhumanbehaviour,thesedistinctionswouldbeasinappropriateastheattributionofmoralresponsibilitytotheplanetarysystemorthetissuesofalivingcell.Thesecategoriespermeateallthatwethinkandfeelsopervasivelyanduniversallythattothinkthemaway,andconceivewhatandhowweshouldbethinking,feelingandtalkingwithoutthem,orintheframeworkoftheiropposites,psychologicallygreatlystrainsourcapacityisnearly,ifnotquite,asimpracticableas,letussay,topretendthatweliveinaworldinwhichspace,timeornumberinthenormalsensenolongerexist.Wemayindeedalwaysargueaboutspecificsituations,aboutwhetheragivenoccurrenceisbestexplainedastheinevitableeffectof(p.122)antecedenteventsbeyondhumancontrol,oronthecontraryasduetofreehumanchoice;freeinthesensenotmerelythatthecasewouldhavebeenalteredifwehadchosentriedtoactdifferently;butthatnothingpreventedusfromsochoosing.

Itmaywellbethatthegrowthofscienceandhistoricalknowledgedoesinfacttendtoshowmakeprobablethatmuchofwhatwashithertoattributedtotheactsoftheunfetteredwillsofindividualscanbesatisfactorilyexplainedonlybytheworkingofother,natural,impersonalfactors;thatwehave,inourignoranceorvanity,extendedtherealmofhumanfreedommuchtoofar.Yettheverymeaningofsuchtermsascauseandinevitabledependsonthepossibilityofcontrastingthemwithatleasttheirimaginaryopposites.Thesealternativesmaybeimprobable;buttheymustatleastbeconceivable,ifonlyforthepurposeofcontrastingthemwithcausalnecessitiesandlawobservinguniformities;unlessweattachsomemeaningtothenotionoffreeacts,thatis,actsnotwhollydeterminedbyantecedenteventsorbythenatureanddispositionalcharacteristicsofeitherpersonsorthings,itisdifficulttoseewhywecometodistinguishactstowhichresponsibilityisattachedfrommeresegmentsinaphysical,psychicalorpsychophysicalcausalchainofeventsadistinctionsignified(evenifallparticularapplicationsofitaremistaken)bytheclusterofexpressionswhichdealwithopenalternativesandfreechoices.Yetitisthisdistinctionthatunderliesournormalattributionofvalues,inparticularthenotionthatpraiseandblamecaneverbejustly(notmerelyusefullyoreffectively)bestowed.Ifthedeterministhypothesisweretrue,andadequatelyaccountedfortheactualworld,thereisaclearsenseinwhich,despitealltheextraordinarycasuistrywhichhasbeenbroughttobeartoavoidthisconclusion,thenotionofhumanresponsibility,asordinarilyunderstood,wouldnolongerapplytoanyactual,butonlytoimaginaryorconceivable,statesofaffairs.

Idonotherewishtosaythatdeterminismisnecessarilyfalse,onlythatweneitherspeaknorthinkasifitcouldbetrue,andthatitisdifficult,andperhapsbeyondournormalpowers,toconceivewhatourpictureoftheworldwouldbeifweseriouslybelievedit;sothattospeak,assometheoristsofhistory(andscientistswithaphilosophicalbent)tendtodo,asifonemight(inlifeandnotonlyinthestudy)acceptthedeterministhypothesis,andyetcontinuetothinkandspeakmuchaswedoatpresent,istobreedintellectualconfusion.Ifthebeliefinfreedomwhichrestsontheassumption(p.123)thathumanbeingsdooccasionallychoose,andthattheirchoicesarenotwholly

Historical Inevitability

Page 20 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

accountedforbythekindofcausalexplanationswhichareacceptedin,say,physicsorbiologyifthisisanecessaryillusion,itissodeepandsopervasivethatitisnotfeltassuch.1Nodoubtwecantrytoconvinceourselvesthatwearesystematicallydeluded;2butunlessweattempttothinkouttheimplicationsofthispossibility,andalterourmodesofthoughtandspeechtoallowforitaccordingly,thishypothesisremainshollow;thatis,wefinditimpracticableeventoentertainitseriously,ifourbehaviouristobetakenasevidenceofwhatwecanandwhatwecannotbringourselvestobelieveorsupposenotmerelyintheory,butinpractice.

Mysubmissionisthattomakeaseriousattempttoadaptourthoughtsandwordstothehypothesisofdeterminismisafearfultask,asthingsarenow,andhavebeenwithinrecordedhistory.Thechangesinvolvedareveryradical;ourmoralandpsychologicalcategoriesare,intheend,moreflexiblethanourphysicalones,butnotmuchmoreso;itisnotmucheasiertobegintothinkoutinrealterms,towhichbehaviourandspeechwouldcorrespond,whattheuniverseofthegenuinedeterministwouldbelike,thantothinkout,withtheminimumofindispensableconcretedetail(thatis,begintoimagine)whatitwouldbeliketobeinatimelessworld,oronewithaseventeendimensionalspace.Letthosewhodoubtthistryforthemselves;thesymbolswithwhichwethinkwillhardlylendthemselvestotheexperiment;they,intheirturn,aretoodeeplyinvolvedinournormalviewoftheworld,allowingforeverydifferenceofperiodandclimeandculture,tobecapableofsoviolentabreak.Wecan,ofcourse,workoutthelogical(p.124)implicationsofanysetofinternallyconsistentpremisseslogicandmathematicswilldoanyworkthatisrequiredofthembutthisisaverydifferentthingfromknowinghowtheresultwouldlookinpractice,whattheconcreteinnovationsare;and,sincehistoryisnotadeductivescience(andevensociologybecomesprogressivelylessintelligibleasitlosestouchwithitsempiricalfoundations),suchhypotheses,beingabstractmodels,pureandunapplied,willbeoflittleusetostudentsofhumanlife.Hencetheancientcontroversybetweenfreewillanddeterminism,whileitremainsagenuineproblemfortheologiansandphilosophers,neednottroublethethoughtsofthosewhoseconcerniswithempiricalmatterstheactuallivesofhumanbeingsinthespaceandtimeofnormalexperience.Forpractisinghistoriansdeterminismisnot,andneednotbe,aseriousissue.

Yet,inapplicableasitmaybeasatheoryofhumanaction,specificformsofthedeterministichypothesishaveplayedanarresting,iflimited,roleinalteringourviewsofhumanresponsibility.Theirrelevanceofthegeneralhypothesistohistoricalstudiesmustnotblindustoitsimportance,touchedonabove,asaspecificcorrectivetoignorance,prejudice,dogmatismandfantasyonthepartofthosewhojudgethebehaviourofothers.Foritisplainlyagoodthingthatweshouldberemindedbysocialscientiststhatthescopeofhumanchoiceisagooddealmorelimitedthanweusedtosuppose;thattheevidenceatourdisposalshowsthatmanyoftheactstoooftenassumedtobewithintheindividual'scontrolarenotsothatmanisanobjectin(scientificallypredictable)naturetoalargerdegreethanhasattimesbeensupposed,thathumanbeingsmoreoftenthannotactastheydobecauseofcharacteristicsduetoheredityorphysicalorsocialenvironmentoreducation,orbiologicalorphysicalcharacteristics,ortheinterplayof

Historical Inevitability

Page 21 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

thesefactorswitheachotherandwiththeobscurerfactorslooselycalledpsychicalcharacteristics;andthattheresultanthabitsofthought,feelingandexpressionare,atleastinprinciple,ascapableofbeingclassifiedandmadesubjecttohypothesesandsystematiclawsasthebehaviourofmaterialobjects.Andthiscertainlyaltersourideasaboutthelimitsoffreedomandresponsibility.Ifwearetoldthatagivencaseofstealingisduetokleptomania,weprotestthattheappropriatetreatmentisnotpunishmentbutaremedyforadisease;and,similarly,ifadestructiveactoraviciouscharacterisascribedtoa(p.125) specificpsychologicalorsocialcause,wedecide,ifweareconvincedthattheexplanationisvalid,thattheagentisnotresponsibleforhisacts,andconsequentlydeservestherapeuticratherthanpenaltreatment.Itissalutarytoberemindedofthenarrownessofthefieldwithinwhichwecanbegintoclaimtobefree;andsomewouldclaimthatsuchknowledgeisstillincreasing,andthefieldstillcontracting.

Wherethefrontierbetweenfreedomandcausallawsistobedeterminedisacrucialpracticalissue;knowledgeofitisapowerfulandindispensableantidotetoignoranceandirrationality,andoffersusnewtypesofexplanationhistorical,psychological,sociological,biologicalwhichpreviousgenerationshavelacked.Whatwecannotalter,orcannotalterasmuchaswehadsupposed,cannotbeusedasevidencefororagainstusasfreemoralagents;itcancauseustofeelpride,shame,regret,interest,butnotremorse;itcanbeadmired,envied,deplored,enjoyed,feared,wonderedat,butnot(saveinsomequasiaestheticsense)praisedorcondemned;ourtendencytoindignationiscurbed,wedesistfrompassingjudgement.Jeneproposerien,jenesupposerien,jen'imposerien...j'expose,saidaFrenchwriterproudly,andsuchexpositionmeantforhimthetreatmentofalleventsascausalorstatisticalphenomena,asscientificmaterial,totheexclusionofmoraljudgement.

Historiansofthispersuasion,anxioustoavoidallpersonal,aboveall,allmoral,judgements,tendtoemphasisetheimmensepredominanceofimpersonalfactorsinhistory,ofthephysicalmediainwhichlifeislived,thepowerofgeographical,psychological,socialfactorswhicharenot,atanyrateconsciously,manmade,andareoftenbeyondhumancontrol.Thisdoestendtocheckourarrogance,toinducehumilitybyforcingustoadmitthatourownoutlookandscalesofvalueareneitherpermanentnoruniversallyaccepted,thattheoverconfident,toocomplacent,moralclassificationsofpasthistoriansandoftheirsocietiessprangalltooobviouslyfromspecifichistoricalconditions,specificformsofignoranceorvainglory,orfromparticulartemperamentaltraitsinthehistorian(ormoralist),orfromothercausesandcircumstanceswhich,fromourvantagepoint,weperceivetobelongtotheirownplaceandtime,andtohavegivenrisetointerpretationswhichlaterseemidiosyncratic,smug,shallow,unjustandoftengrotesqueinthelightofourownstandardsofaccuracyorobjectivity.And,whatisevenmoreimportant,suchalineofapproachthrowsdoubt(p.126) uponallattemptstoestablishadefinitiveboundarybetweentheindividual'sfreechoiceandhisnaturalorsocialnecessitation,anddoesthisbybringingtolighttheegregiousblundersofsomeofthosewhotriedtosolvethisorthatprobleminthepast,andmademistakesoffactwhichnow,alltooplainly,seemduetotheir(unalterable)milieu,orcharacter,orinterests.Andthistendstomakeusaskwhetherthesamemightnotbeequallytrueofusandourown

Historical Inevitability

Page 22 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

historicaljudgements;andso,bysuggestingthateverygenerationissubjectivelyconditionedbyitsownculturalandpsychologicalpeculiarities,leadsustowonderwhetheritmightnotbebesttoavoidallmoraljudgement,allascriptionofresponsibility,mightnotbesafesttoconfineourselvestoimpersonalterms,andleavewhatevercannotbesaidinsuchtermsaltogetherunsaid.Havewelearnednothingfromtheintolerablemoraldogmatismandthemechanicalclassificationsofthosehistoriansandmoralistsandpoliticianswhoseviewsarenowsodated,soobsolete,andsojustlydiscredited?And,indeed,whoarewetomakesuchaparadeofourpersonalopinions,togivesuchimportancetowhatarenomorethansymptomsofourownephemeraloutlook?Andwhatright,inanycase,havewetositinjudgementonourfellows,whosemoralcodesaretheproductsoftheirspecifichistoricalenvironments,asourownareofours?Isitnotbettertoanalyse,todescribe,topresenttheevents,andthenwithdrawandletthemspeakforthemselves,refrainingfromtheintolerablepresumptionofawardingmarks,metingoutjustice,dividingthesheepfromthegoatsaccordingtoourownpersonalcriteria,asifthesewereeternalandnot,asinfacttheyare,neithermorenorlessvalidthanthoseofotherswithotherinterests,inotherconditions?

Suchadvicetous(initselfsalutaryenough)toretainacertainscepticismaboutourownpowersofjudgement,especiallytobewareofascribingtoomuchauthoritytoourownmoralviews,comestous,asIhavesaid,fromatleasttwoquarters;fromthosewhothinkthatweknowtoomuch,andfromthosewhothinkthatweknowtoolittle.Weknownow,saytheformer,thatweareasweare,andourmoralandintellectualcriteriaarewhattheyare,invirtueoftheevolvinghistoricalsituation.Letmeoncemorementiontheirvarieties.Someamongthem,whofeelsurethatthenaturalscienceswillintheendaccountforeverything,explainourbehaviourintermsofnaturalcauses.Others,whoacceptamoremetaphysicalinterpretationoftheworld,explainitbyspeakingof(p.127)invisiblepowersanddominions,nations,races,cultures;theSpiritoftheAge,theworkings,overtandoccult,oftheClassicalSpirit,theRenaissance,theMedievalMind,theFrenchRevolution,theTwentiethCentury,conceivedasimpersonalentities,atoncepatternsandrealities,intermsofwhosestructureorpurposetheirelementsandexpressionsmenandinstitutionsmustbehaveastheydo.Stillothersspeakintermsofsometeleologicalprocession,orhierarchy,wherebyallindividuals,countries,institutions,cultures,ages,fulfiltheirseveralpartsinsomecosmicdrama,andarewhattheyareinvirtueofthepartcastforthem,butnotbythem,bythedivineDramatisthimself.FromthisitisnotfartotheviewsofthosewhosaythatHistoryiswiserthanwe,thatitspurposesareunfathomabletous,thatwe,orsomeamongstus,arebutthemeans,theinstruments,themanifestations,worthyorunworthy,ofsomevastallembracingschemaofeternalhumanprogress,oroftheGermanSpirit,oroftheProletariat,orofpostChristiancivilisation,orofFaustianman,orofManifestDestiny,oroftheAmericanCentury,orofsomeothermythormysteryorabstraction.Toknowallistounderstandall;itistoknowwhythingsareandmustbeastheyare;thereforethemoreweknowthemoreabsurdwemustthinkthosewhosupposethatthingscouldhavebeenotherwise,andsofallintotheirrationaltemptationtopraiseorblame.Toutcomprendre,c'esttoutpardonneristransformedintoameretruism.Anyformofmoralcensuretheaccusingfingerofhistoriansorpublicistsorpoliticians,andindeedthe

Historical Inevitability

Page 23 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

agoniesoftheprivateconscience,tootends,sofaraspossible,tobeexplainedawayasoneorothersophisticatedversionofprimitivetaboosorpsychicaltensionsorconflicts,nowappearingasmoralconsciousness,nowassomeothersanction,growingoutof,andbatteningupon,thatignorancewhichalonegeneratesfallaciousbeliefsinfreewillanduncausedchoice,doomedtodisappearinthegrowinglightofscientificormetaphysicaltruth.

Or,again,wefindthattheadherentsofasociologicalorhistoricaloranthropologicalmetaphysicstendtointerpretthesenseofmissionanddedication,thevoiceofduty,allformsofinnercompulsionofthistype,asbeinganexpressionwithineachindividual'sconsciouslifeofthevastimpersonalforceswhichcontrolit,andwhichspeakinus,throughus,tous,fortheirowninscrutablepurposes.Tohearisthenliterallytoobeytobedrawntowardsthetruegoalofourrealself,oritsnaturalorrationaldevelopmentthattowhichwearecalledinvirtueof(p.128) belongingtothisorthatclass,ornation,orrace,orChurch,orstationinsociety,ortradition,orage,orculture.Theexplanation,andinsomesensetheweightofresponsibility,forallhumanactionis(attimeswithillconcealedrelief)transferredtothebroadbacksofthesevastimpersonalforcesinstitutionsorhistorictrendsbettermadetobearsuchburdensthanafeeblethinkingreedlikeman,acreaturethat,withamegalomaniascarcelyappropriatetohisphysicalandmoralfrailty,claims,ashetoooftendoes,toberesponsiblefortheworkingsofNatureoroftheSpirit;and,flownwithhisimportance,praisesandblames,worshipsandtortures,murdersandimmortalisesothercreatureslikehimselfforconceiving,willingorexecutingpoliciesforwhichneitherhenortheycanberemotelyresponsible;asiffliesweretositinsolemnjudgementuponeachotherforcausingtherevolutionsofthesunorthechangesoftheseasonswhichaffecttheirlives.Butnosoonerdoweacquireadequateinsightintotheinexorableandinevitablepartsplayedbyallthingsanimateandinanimateinthecosmicprocessthanwearefreedfromthesenseofpersonalendeavour.Oursenseofguiltandofsin,ourpangsofremorseandselfcondemnation,areautomaticallydissolved;thetension,thefearoffailureandfrustration,disappearaswebecomeawareoftheelementsofalargerorganicwholeofwhichwearevariouslydescribedaslimbsormembers,orreflections,oremanations,orfiniteexpressions;oursenseoffreedomandindependence,ourbeliefinanarea,howevercircumscribed,inwhichwecanchoosetoactasweplease,fallsfromus;initsplaceweareprovidedwithasenseofmembershipinanorderedsystem,eachwithauniquepositionsacredtohimselfalone.Wearesoldiersinanarmy,andnolongersufferthepainsandpenaltiesofsolitude;thearmyisonthemarch,orgoalsaresetforus,notchosenbyus;doubtsarestilledbyauthority.Thegrowthofknowledgebringswithitrelieffrommoralburdens,forifpowersbeyondandaboveusareatwork,itiswildpresumptiontoclaimresponsibilityfortheiractivityorblameourselvesforfailinginit.Originalsinisthustransferredtoanimpersonalplane,andactshithertoregardedaswickedorunjustifiableareseeninamoreobjectivefashioninalargercontextaspartoftheprocessofhistorywhich,beingresponsibleforprovidinguswithourscaleofvalues,mustnotthereforeitselfbejudgedintermsofit;andviewedinthisnewlighttheyturnoutnolongerwickedbutrightandgoodbecausenecessitatedbythewhole.

Historical Inevitability

Page 24 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

(p.129) Thisisadoctrinewhichliesattheheartequallyofscientificattemptstoexplainmoralsentimentsaspsychologicalorsociologicalresiduesorthelike,andofthemetaphysicalvisionforwhichwhateveristrulyisisgood.Tounderstandallistoseethatnothingcouldbeotherwisethanasitis;thatallblame,indignation,protestismerecomplaintaboutwhatseemsdiscordant,aboutelementswhichdonotseemtofit,abouttheabsenceofanintellectuallyorspirituallysatisfyingpattern.Butthisisalwaysevidenceonlyoffailureonthepartoftheobserver,ofhisblindnessandignorance;itcanneverbeanobjectiveassessmentofreality,forinrealityeverythingnecessarilyfits,nothingissuperfluous,nothingamiss,everyingredientisjustifiedinbeingwhereitisbythedemandsofthetranscendentwhole;andallsenseofguilt,injustice,ugliness,allresistanceorcondemnation,ismereproofof(attimesunavoidable)lackofvision,misunderstanding,subjectiveaberration.Vice,pain,folly,maladjustment,allcomefromfailuretounderstand,fromfailure,inE.M.Forster'scelebratedphrase,toconnect.1

Thisisthesermonpreachedtousbygreatandnoblethinkersofverydifferentoutlooks,bySpinozaandGodwin,byTolstoyandComte,bymysticsandrationalists,theologiansandscientificmaterialists,metaphysiciansanddogmaticempiricists,Americansociologists,RussianMarxistsandGermanhistoricistsalike.ThusGodwin(andhespeaksformanyhumaneandcivilisedpersons)tellsusthattounderstandahumanactwemustalwaysavoidapplyinggeneralprinciplesandexamineeachcaseinitsfullindividualdetail.Whenwescrupulouslyexaminethetextureandpatternofthisorthatlife,weshallnot,inourhasteandblindness,seektocondemnortopunish;forweshallseewhythisorthatmanwascausedtoactinthisorthatmannerbyignoranceorpovertyorsomeothermoralorintellectualorphysicaldefectas(Godwinoptimisticallysupposes)wecanalwayssee,ifwearmourselveswithsufficientpatience,knowledgeandsympathyandweshallthenblamehimnomorethanweshouldanobjectinnature;andsinceitisaxiomaticthatwecannotbothactuponourknowledge,andyetregrettheresult,wecanandshallintheendsucceedinmakingmengood,just,happyandwise.So,too,CondorcetandHenrideSaintSimon,andtheirdisciple,AugusteComte,startingfromtheoppositeconvictionnamelythatmenarenotuniqueorinneed,eachoneofthem,ofindividual(p.130)treatment,but,nolessthaninhabitantsoftheanimal,vegetableandmineralkingdoms,belongtotypesandobeygenerallawsmaintainnolessstoutlythatoncetheselawshavebeendiscovered(andthereforeapplied)thiswillbyitselfleadtouniversalfelicity.Andthisconvictionhassincebeenechoedbymanyidealisticliberalsandrationalists,technocrats,positivistsandbelieversinthescientificorganisationofsociety;andinverydifferentkeysbytheocrats,neomedievalromantics,authoritariansandpoliticalmysticsofvariouskinds.This,too,isinsubstancethemoralitypreached,ifnotbyMarx,thenbymostofthedisciplesofEngelsandPlekhanov,byPrussiannationalisthistorians,bySpengler,andbymanyanotherthinkerwhobelievesthatthereisapatternwhichhehasseenbutothershavenotseen,oratleastnotsoclearlyseen,andthatbythisvisionmenmaybesaved.

Knowandyouwillnotbelost.Whatitisthatwemustknowdiffersfromthinkertothinker,differsasviewsofthenatureoftheworlddiffer.Knowthelawsoftheuniverse,animateandinanimate,ortheprinciplesofgrowth,orofevolution,oroftheriseandfallof

Historical Inevitability

Page 25 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

civilisations,orthegoalstowardswhichallcreationtends,orthestagesoftheIdea,orsomethinglesstangiblestill.Know,inthesenseofidentifyingyourselfwithit,realisingyouronenesswithit,for,dowhatyoumay,youcannotescapefromthelawstowhichyouaresubject,ofwhateverkindtheymaybe,mechanistic,vitalistic,causal,purposive,imposed,transcendent,immanent,orthemyriadimpalpablestrandswhichbindyoutothepasttoyourlandandtothedead,asBarrsdeclared;tothemilieu,theraceandthemoment,asTaineasserted;toBurke'sgreatsocietyofthedeadandliving,whohavemadeyouwhatyouare;sothatthetruthinwhichyoubelieve,thevaluesintermsofwhichyoujudge,fromtheprofoundestprinciplestothemosttrivialwhims,arepartandparcelofthehistoricalcontinuumtowhichyoubelong.Traditionorbloodorclassorhumannatureorprogressorhumanity;theZeitgeistorthesocialstructureorthelawsofhistoryorthetrueendsoflife;knowthesebetruetothemandyouwillbefree.FromZenotoSpinoza,fromtheGnosticstoLeibniz,fromThomasHobbestoLeninandFreud,thebattlecryhasbeenessentiallythesame;theobjectofknowledgeandthemethodsofdiscoveryhaveoftenbeenviolentlyopposed,butthatrealityisknowable,andthatknowledgeandonlyknowledgeliberates,andabsoluteknowledgeliberatesabsolutelythatiscommontomany(p.131) doctrineswhicharesolargeandvaluableapartofWesterncivilisation.

Tounderstandistoexplainandtoexplainistojustify.Thenotionofindividualfreedomisadelusion.Thefurtherwearefromomniscience,thewiderournotionofourfreedomandresponsibilityandguilt,productsofignoranceandfearwhichpopulatetheunknownwithterrifyingfictions.Personalfreedomisanobledelusionandhashaditssocialvalue;societymighthavecrumbledwithoutit;itisanecessaryinstrumentoneofthegreatestdevicesofthecunningofReasonorofHistory,orofwhateverothercosmicforcewemaybeinvitedtoworship.Butadelusion,howevernoble,useful,metaphysicallyjustified,historicallyindispensable,isstilladelusion.Andsoindividualresponsibilityandtheperceptionofthedifferencebetweenrightandwrongchoices,betweenavoidableevilandmisfortune,aremeresymptoms,evidencesofvanity,ofourimperfectadjustment,ofhumaninabilitytofacethetruth.Themoreweknow,thegreatertherelieffromtheburdenofchoice;weforgiveothersforwhattheycannotavoidbeing,andbythesametokenweforgiveourselves.Inagesinwhichthechoicesseempeculiarlyagonising,whenstronglyheldidealscannotbereconciledandcollisionscannotbeaverted,suchdoctrinesseempeculiarlycomforting.Weescapemoraldilemmasbydenyingtheirreality;and,bydirectingourgazetowardsthegreaterwholes,wemakethemresponsibleinourplace.Allweloseisanillusion,andwithitthepainfulandsuperfluousemotionsofguiltandremorse.Freedomnotoriouslyinvolvesresponsibility,anditisformanyspiritsasourceofwelcomerelieftolosetheburdenofboth,notbysomeignobleactofsurrender,butbydaringtocontemplateinacalmspiritthingsastheymustbe;forthisistobetrulyphilosophical.Therebywereducehistorytoakindofphysics;aswellblamethegalaxyorgammaraysasGenghisKhanorHitler.Toknowallistoforgiveallturnsouttobe,inA.J.Ayer'sstrikingphrase(usedinanothercontext),nothingbutadramatisedtautology.

IV

Historical Inevitability

Page 26 of 54

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NationalUniversity of Singapore; date: 13 April 2015

Wehavespokenthusfaroftheviewthatwecannotpraiseorblamebecauseweknowormayonedayknow,oratanyratecouldknowtoomuchforthat.Byaqueerparadoxthesamepositionisreachedbysomeofthosewhoholdwhatseemsatfirst(p.132) thediametricaloppositeofthisposition,thatwecannotpraiseorblamenotbecauseweknowtoomuch,butbecauseweknowtoolittle.Historiansimbuedwithasenseofhumilitybeforethescopeanddifficultiesoftheirtask,viewingthemagnitudeofhumanclaimsandthesmallnessofhumanknowledgeandjudgement,warnussternlyagainstsettingupourparochialvaluesasuniversallyvalidandapplyingwhatmay,atmost,holdforasmallportionofhumanityforabriefspaninsomeinsignificantcorneroftheuniversetoallbeingsinallplacesandatalltimes.ToughmindedrealistsinfluencedbyMarxismandChristianapologistsdifferprofoundlyinoutlook,inmethod,inconclusions,buttheyareatoneinthis.Theformer1tellusthatthesocialoreconomicprincipleswhich,forexample,VictorianEnglishmenacceptedasbasicandeternalwerebuttheinterestsofoneparticularislandcommunityatoneparticularmomentofitssocialandcommercialdevelopment,andthetruthswhichtheysodogmaticallybounduponthemselvesanduponothers,andinthenameofwhichtheyfeltjustifiedinactingastheydid,werebuttheirownpassingeconomicorpoliticalneedsandclaimsmasqueradingasuniversaltruths,andrangprogressivelymorehollowintheearsofothernationswithincreasinglyopposedinterests,astheyfoundthemselvesfrequentlythelosersinagamewheretheruleshadbeeninventedbythestrongerside.Thenthedaybegantodawnwhentheyintheirturnacquiredsufficientpower,andturnedthetables,andtransformedinternationalmorality,albeitunconsciously,tosuitthemselves.Nothingisabsolute,moralrulesvarydirectlyasthedistributionofpower:theprevalentmoralityisalwaysthatofthevictors;wecannotpretendtoholdthescalesofjusticeevenbetweenthemandtheirvictims,forweourselvesbelongtoonesideortheother;exhypothesiwecannotseetheworldfrommorethanonevantagepointatatime.Ifweinsistonjudgingothersintermsofourtransientstandardswemustnotprotesttoomuchifthey,intheirturn,judgeusintermsoftheirs,whichsanctimoniouspersonsamongusaretooswifttodenouncefornobetterreasonthanthattheyarenotours.

AndsomeamongtheirChristianopponents,startingfromverydifferentassumptions,seemenasfeeblecreaturesgropingindarkness,knowingbutlittleofhowthingscomeabout,orwhatin(p.133) historyinexorablycauseswhat,andhowthingsmighthaveturnedoutbutforthisortha