10. Americans on progress: the 19th-20th centuries
Optimists and pessimists
For some reason Bury devoted almost no attention to Americans – evidently thinking that they are not likely to say anything worthwhile about progress. The Englishman may have been correct; however, Americans did come up with something to say. The American Nisbet told us about it.
Naturally, he starts with the Founding Fathers, some of whom were scientists and philosophers. For example, Benjamin Franklin was convinced that America would become a great and powerful civilization, and in his Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind (1755) he presented as the chief argument the fact of the country’s rapid population growth. Few people in America paid attention to this fact as an indicator of mankind’s progress, even though it is indeed one of the important variables in the concept “progress.” Of course it doesn’t explain the cause of progress, but it does reflect one of its principal consequences. In fact it is about expansion of the “genus” – something that takes place when a species adapts successfully in the organic world. At the same time Franklin - same as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson – emphasized, when he was reasoning about progress, the enormous role of knowledge, science, art and of overcoming barbarism, even though these men did not analyze the term from the scientific perspective.
There is a very important clause in the Constitution of the United States: (Article 1, Section 8): “Congress shall have Power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
Many writers, scientists and politicians wrote of the American mission in the 19th century. Some of them made no secret of the imperial tasks of the USA and went as far as to bestow on the United States “responsibility” for “progress” throughout the world. For example, the author and statesman Albert J. Beveridge wrote: “God has not been preparing the English-speaking and Teutonic peoples for thousands of years for nothing but vain and idle self-contemplation and self-admiration. No. He made us master organizers of the world to establish system where chaos reigned. He has given us the spirit of progress to overwhelm the forces of reaction throughout the earth. He has made us adept in government that we may administer government among savage and senile peoples. Were it not for such force as this the world would relapse into barbarism and night. And of all our race, he has marked the American people as His chosen nation to finally lead in the redemption of the world.” (quoted from: Nisbet, р. 286)
In his time this statement seemed too frank and provocative; not so today. It appears that Americans have learned well their ideologues’ directions.
Other authors reasoned about progress within the context of their theories, which in themselves became reflections of certain political or economic ideologies. Nisbet analyzes the works of a number of scholars, including Fredrick August von Hayek (1899-1992) – an Austrian economist who lived in the USA for many years. He mentions Hayek as one of those adherents of progress who believed that progress is civilization, and civilization is progress. Hayek wrote in his The Constitution of Liberty (1960): “The preservation of the kind of civilization… depends on the operation of forces which, under favorable conditions, produce progress.” (quoted from: Nisbet, р. 300) In other words, to him civilization is progress, and progress is civilization. Against the backdrop of those skeptical of progress, Hayek’s voice sounded much like a challenge: after all, as Hayek himself wrote, many prefer to put the word progress in quotation marks. The main thing to him, however, was something else: he linked progress to his liberal economic theory (i.e. limitation of the state’s intervention, etc.). Within the framework of the construction “liberalism-cum-progress” he regarded the latter as a spiritual force of sorts which exceeds in its impact the Protestant ethics. Hayek wrote: “Progress is movement for movement’s sake, for it is in the process of learning, and in the effects of having learned something new, that man enjoys the gifts of his intelligence.” (ibid.)
Another variant of progress is exemplified by the views of the English economist Michael Freeden who presented them in his first monograph The New Liberalism (1978); these views are shared by his colleagues J. A. Hobson and L. T. Hobhouse. This new type of liberalism (neoliberalism) maintains that economic and social progress presupposes intervention by the central government. That is, planning, regulation and government by degree are the key to progress.
In the USA this approach was supported by Lester Ward, Thorstein Veblen, and John Dewey. In Nisbet’s opinion, their approaches strongly resemble the Fabians’ democratic socialism, albeit there are differences. To these authors, the principles of individual freedom are more important after all than institutional limits, even though these principles may be safeguarded through non-Spencerian methods. Ward (a paleobotanist and sociologist) is characterized, though, by an inclination on the whole toward political and social planning; he favors enlightened control and sees the government as a defender of its citizens.
Veblen saw progress being slowed down “in his time” by the domination of capitalist management which ignored the scientific approach. In his work Instinct of Workmanship, in which he presented his theory of progress and its stages, Veblen stressed: expanding the power of government, spreading legislation to spheres heretofore uncovered by law, according importance not only to economic interests which govern our lives, but also to achievements of the mind – that is the only way that will enable us, if we follow it, to accelerate the pace of progress and improve the social conditions for the majority of people in the capitalist society.
The well-known American pragmatist philosopher John Dewey is also listed among the supporters of progress; in his view, progress is based on faith in the intellectual abilities of man who is capable of rational thinking and is therefore oriented toward progressive reforms. In his work Democracy and Education (1916) he emphasized the importance of “progressive education” as a tool for achieving progress. His pragmatism – as instrumentalism – presupposed the possibility of social transformations which can be achieved through “regulated freedom” and “equal opportunities” without any class conflicts. There’s a philosopher very acceptable to the bourgeois America.
Nisbet also points out another group of philosopher scholars of the technocratic persuasion who believed in progress even “in the times of the Great Depression.” Much like them, Nisbet says, were scholars of the Marxist direction who pinned their hopes on progress while leaning on science. He writes, having them in mind: “All had absorbed the Marxian doctrine of progress…. For them as for the Technocrats, as well as for the New Liberals, the problem was not that of effecting progress, but rather, of merely activating what was already latent in society, of accelerating what would be taking place naturally were there not certain artificial obstacles, chiefly economic and fiscal, the results of the blindness of capitalists and the managers of industry.” (р. 306)
Curiously, Nisbet quotes in this connection an excerpt from the Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union where it says that mankind goes from capitalism to socialism, which is a “natural result of the development of society.” (ibid.) Nisbet wants to stress through this that both the Western pro-Marxists and the Soviet Union proceeded from a common idea, namely: progress is embedded objectively in society itself. It suffices to remove certain barriers, and progress rises to the surface by itself, in a manner of speaking.
Nisbet is correct to a degree, at least concerning the Soviet Union. The ideology of the USSR was indeed built on the objectivity of historical laws which will force their way on their own - one way or another - to the communist future. That’s where one of the major strategic mistakes of the post-Stalin Soviet leadership was rooted – one that had nothing to do with Marxism.
What Marxism teaches is that yes, there exists a certain historical tendency of transition from one social-economic structure to another - for example, from capitalism to socialism. This tendency should be considered progressive, for it ends the system of exploitation of man by man. However, this tendency is not realized automatically: it is necessary to apply a whole lot of subjective efforts (in the form of struggle) so that this objective tendency becomes fulfilled in life. Preliminarily it is necessary to cognize the mechanisms of both systems to successfully bring down one (it does not surrender without a fight) and to manage the other no less successfully. In other words, the main thing is to cognize the laws of society’s development. Blind faith in the laws of socialism which weren’t even formulated yet (socialism in the USSR was a non-mature form of the new social-economic formation) played a mean historical joke on the Soviet Union: it fell apart. This doesn’t mean that socialism as an idea disappeared from the world arena; it goes on developing in China in a specific form. However, socialism as a theory does not yet have completeness; it is not supported and confirmed by the laws of society’s development. We shall have to revisit this topic in one way or another. For the time being let us get back to Nisbet.
As is well known, after World War I - as well as with World War II - the number of skeptics who rejected the possibility and the inevitability of progress increased both in Europe and in the USA. Most prominent among them was Oswald Spengler. There were also others, most often among anthropologists for some reason (Alfred Kroeber, Robert Lowie, A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, Bronislaw Malinovski), but also among comparativist historians (Flinders Petrie, F. J. Teggart). The popular Arnold Toynbee also belonged to this group. The skeptics’ cohort is complemented by such well-known names as Max Weber, Georges Sorel (Illusions of Progress), the brothers Henry and Brooks Adams (USA).
Then in the second half of the 20th century the idea of progress started coming to life again; in Nisbet’s opinion, this was due to the sociologist Talcott Parsons and the anthropologist Leslie White. The very word “progressive” became popular. Plenty of books on futurology appeared, as well as the science of futurology itself; Herman Kahn was one of its founders. Major scientists write about progress – such as Julian Huxley and Charles Darwin (a physicist and grandson of Charles Darwin). Quite a few scientists in those times linked progress primarily to the successes of socialism in the USSR.
However, in the late 20th century optimism was again replaced by pessimism (Nisbet himself died in 1996. The first edition of his book was published in 1980, the second edition – with no additions – in 1998, so he did not have time to analyze the views of those who joyously welcomed “progress” after the disappearance of the USSR.)
Summarizing his analysis of philosophers’ views on progress, Nisbet proposes these five “premises”: belief in the value of the past; conviction of the nobility, even superiority, of Western civilization; acceptance of the worth of economic and technological growth; faith in reason and in the kind of scientific and scholarly knowledge that can come reason alone; and, finally, belief in the intrinsic importance, the ineffaceable worth of life on this earth. (see: р. 317).
In his opinion, all these “premises” came to be disputed in the second half of the 20th century. Skepticism came to reign in the West; optimism remained wherever there existed socialism, even if in embryonic form. The latter fact particularly saddened the American. He writes: “The tragedy is that today there is a great deal more conviction of the reality of progress in some of the unfree nations of the world, beginning with the Soviet Union, than there is in the free Western nations.” (italics mine. – A.B., р. 318)
It is possible to write a whole book about progress without understanding what it is. Therein lies the real tragedy of Nisbet the author.
He then goes on to paint the manifestations of this “tragedy” in the West.
This trend was started by the First World War after which the West started on its fall together with its civilization. This event, on the one hand, caused hostility of the rest of the world toward the West; on the other hand, its material well-being became an excuse for envy. Most importantly, the West ceased to be feared and respected, and for some reason it ceased being regarded as a model of society in the “communist” countries and in the Third World countries. What Spengler wrote about became reality. That’s what was going on in the outside world.
The problem is that within the Western states themselves a decline of faith in the values of Western civilization took place. Nisbet reminds an interesting pronouncement by the English historian Henry Thoreau who wrote: “Eastward I go only by force; but westward I go free” and “Every sunset which I witness inspires me to go to a West as distant and as fair as that into which the sun goes down.” (Quoted from: Nisbet, р. 334) Nisbet laments that one rarely hears such words in our day.
It is known that in past times many scientists linked progress to the state’s economic growth. In our day, on the contrary, economic growth is seen as one of causes of retreat from progress. The economist E. J. Mishan analyzes in one of his works the contradictions between economic progress and moral and social values. His conclusion boils down to this: the historical decline began in the Enlightenment epoch, intensified in the 19th century and is accelerating still further now. All this leads to disintegration of social order, to collapse of authority, etc., and the result may be the emergence of a totalitarian state.
The totalitarian state is definitely not a certainty, but it is indeed a historical fact that wealth and luxury destroyed morals and ultimately destroyed whole empires. 20th-century sociologists wrote about this, for example Max Weber in his The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and Joseph Schumpeter in his book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy.
Fred Hirsh adhered to similar conclusions. In his book Social Limits of Growth he writes: “Truth, trust, acceptance, restraint, obligation - these are among the social virtues grounded in religious belief.” (Quoted from: Nisbet, р. 337) Therein supposedly consists the essence of the capitalist spirit. The free market, according to Hirsh, emerged specifically based on religion and moral obligations; it depended on them more than the feudal economy did. (It is unclear, though: why religion did not “start working” during the period of feudalism, at the time when its dictatorship was at its harshest? In all probability, the steam engine proved to be more powerful than any religion after all.) According to Hirsh, moral values were destroyed by self-interest. Adam Smith wrote, though, that it was precisely this “self-interest” of the capitalist that made capitalism possible.
One of the manifestations of pessimism regarding progress is the decline of the social status of “knowledge” and science which used to be linked to the development of progress. To avoid confusion what kind of knowledge is being discussed, Nisbet divides it into two groups. The first group is “knowledge about”; workers in this area include scientists, instructors, historians, philosophers, technologists, and others whose main function is the development of our knowledge about the cosmos, society, man, etc. The other group is “knowledge of” which has to do with habits, rules and mastery of technology which are used in the business of everyday life (р. 340).
Ordinarily it is the first area of knowledge which is subjected to attacks from the public (the philistines). One manifestation of this attack is the reorientation from progress to the “Polynesian lifestyle” which is free of science, technology, etc. Such views were expressed by the beatniks, the hippies and their ilk; to them “the Golden Age” means Polynesia.
Generally speaking, it is understandable when a philistine is up in arms against progress, science and everything that is impregnated by thought; such is the philistine’s essence. What is truly sad is when progress is opposed by scientists or people who represent themselves as such. Here is one of them as presented by Nisbet.
It is the American biologist Gunther Stent. In his small book The Coming of the Golden Age: a Look at the End of Progress he draws the decline, stagnation and inertia in art, science, music, painting. All this supposedly signifies the end of progress, including the end of science. Stent writes, for example: “Is it in fact likely that consciousness, the unique attribute of the brain that appears to endow its ensemble of atoms with self-awareness, will ever be explained?” (quoted from: Nisbet, р. 344) That is, according to Stent, it is impossible to cognize consciousness; it is beyond the limits of human understanding. Stent is not alone in this stance; I can mention here another “agnostic” – the philosopher C. McGinn who made a similar conclusion. These “sages” believe for some reason that if they are unable to cognize something, then no one is able to do it.[4] Stent, though, having admitted his own inability to explain something, makes an even more global conclusion: “Thus I reach my first general conclusion concerning progress: It is by its very nature, by its very dependence on the will to power, self-limiting.” (quoted from: Nisbet, р. 344) (It is perfectly unclear how progress can limit itself. It can only be limited by limited people.)
Dr. Robert L. Sinsheimer, another “sage” of the science field, writes of the same, albeit from the ecological perspective. He points out three areas of knowledge which are perhaps unneeded by man.
The first area is the research of isotopes. It is the kind of research that gives birth to nuclear bombs, etc., – dangerous stuff that can be used by terrorists and so on. (Isn’t that a laugh? Terrorists can make use of airplanes and trains – so perhaps we should stop building those things?)
The second area is the search for extraterrestrial civilizations. What is it for? Will it be any good to us if we do find any? What if they are superior to us in culture? We will then suffer a “culture shock” and a catastrophe in general. (I agree with him on this count, but for other reasons. We shall not suffer any “culture shock” simply because there aren’t any extraterrestrials. It suffices to recall the concurrence of circumstances which led to man to become convinced that a repetition of such circumstances is not possible in principle. Since the repetition is excluded, the possibility of “mutual understanding” is likewise excluded.)
The third area is the problem of aging. Should this problem be resolved, the proportion of young people in the country’s general population will be minuscule. The “sage” then writes: “The logic is inexorable. In a finite world the end of death means the end of birth. Who will be the last born? If we propose such research we must take seriously the possibility of its success. The impact of a major extension of the human life span upon our entire social order, upon the life styles, mores… upon the carrying of a planet already facing overpopulation would be devastating.” (quoted from: Nisbet, р. 346)
Everything said above is taken “out of the blue,” as if it was written by a man who never had anything to do with science. Who ever calculated the planet’s “capabilities”? Why is the claim made that it is “over-populated”? Why does the end of death mean the end of birth? After all, the problem of ageing is not solved in a year, or in five years, or in ten; it is solved over a long historical period during which mankind will invent plenty of forms for surviving and thriving. This will be discussed separately; here we should note only the utter incompetence of the “scientists” mentioned. To be convinced of this, we need to address another ecologist whose analysis is cardinally different from the one presented above.
Attempting to understand the skeptics, Nisbet suggests that their pessimism was caused by unrealized expectations of improved social development after World War II, despite the all sorts of projects which they proposed in their works. The reaction to these unfulfilled dreams was the departure of many “scientists” into mysticism and occultism – which, by the way, is particularly characteristic of Russian social scientists after the death of the Soviet Union.
At the same time Nisbet mentions several economists who noted a very unusual phenomenon in social life - “boredom,” which is produced by a number of social-economic factors (sharp drop of hours worked, longer vacations, satisfactory pensions together with increased average life spans). Denis Gabor, the famous English-Hungarian physicist who also worked in the field of sociology, in his book Inventing the Future (1963) called the present time “The Age of Leisure” and identified leisure as a problem alongside other two problems which mankind will have to solve (together they form the so-called “trilemma”): nuclear weapons and excess population on Earth. The problem of “the era of pleasure” is the most difficult one to solve, since mankind never met it before in all its history. The essence of the problem, Gabor concludes, is that thanks to technologies and the rapidly developing cult of pleasure we in Western society constantly push work into the background. The work ethic disappears, while the pleasure ethic grows. It becomes increasingly obvious, however, that few people, if indeed such exist at all among humans, can endure leisure without boredom, without getting drawn into alcoholism, drug addiction, other forms of alienation (escapism) or into violence, into terrorism. All of mankind’s biological and psychological evolution hasn’t prepared it for leisure on such a scale. Current technologies even make it possible for us to turn leisure into a fetish. This trend tallies poorly with the ideas of progress, naturally.
Harlow Shapley was another Harvard scholar who in his time drew attention to boredom as a problem. Same as Gabor, he put “boredom” in the context of “pleasure” in third place among the factors destroying Western civilization, behind nuclear armaments and overpopulation of the planet. And this process of “pleasurization,” as noted by yet another author – Tom Wolfe, an American journalist, writer and a sociologist – is accompanied very rapidly by the spread of subjectivism, as phenomenon for which he invented the word “me-ness.” This “’me-ness’ proceeds apace with leisure, inviting a view of the future in which the bond of humanity, of community, and mutual awareness will have disappeared altogether.”[5]
This was said in the 1960s-1970s. Today the situation is more acute by several orders of magnitude. The process of parasitization of the middle class is taking place right before our eyes; I shall revisit this topic in the corresponding section.
Thus, skepticism toward progress on the part of scientists in the West which intensified in the late 20th century was connected to the problems experienced by Western societies. In other words, the matter is not about progress itself – it is about the character of capitalism; or, more exactly, about its late stage when it really started exhibiting all the qualities of decay.
To conclude the exposition about the scholars presented by Nisbet, it is fitting to analyze the views of Nisbet himself on progress.