| |
Internationalism
The idea of humanity as a single race of beings with a common life and
a common general interest is among the most characteristic and significant
products of modern thought. It is an outcome of the European mind which
proceeds characteristically from life-experience to the idea and, without
going deeper, returns from the idea upon life in an attempt to change
its outward forms and institutions, its order and system. In the European
mentality it has taken the shape known currently as internationalism.
Internationalism is the attempt of the human mind and life to grow out
of the national idea and form and even in a way to destroy it in the interest
of the larger synthesis of mankind. An idea proceeding on these lines
needs always to attach itself to some actual force or developing power
in the life of the times before it can exercise a practical effect. But
usually it suffers by contact with the interests and prepossessions of
its grosser ally some lesser or greater diminution of itself or even a
distortion, and in that form, no longer pure and absolute, enters on the
first stage of practice.
The idea of internationalism was born of the thought of the eighteenth
century and it took some kind of voice in the first idealistic stages
of the French Revolution. But at that time, it was rather a vague intellectual
sentiment than a clear idea seeing its way to practice; it found no strong
force in life to help it to take visible body. What came out of the French
Revolution and the struggle that grew around it, was a complete and self-conscious
nationalism and not internationalism. During the nineteenth century we
see the larger idea growing again in the minds of thinkers, sometimes
in a modified form, sometimes in its own pure idealism, till allying itself
with the growing forces of socialism and anarchism it took a clear body
and a recognisable vital force. In its absolute form, it became the internationalism
of the intellectuals, intolerant of nationalism as a narrow spirit of
the past, contemptuous of patriotism as an irrational prejudice, a maleficent
corporate egoism characteristic of narrow intellects and creative of arrogance,
prejudice, hatred, oppression, division and strife between nation and
nation, a gross survival of the past which the growth of reason was destined
to destroy. It is founded on a view of things which looks at man in his
manhood only and casts away all those physical and social accidents of
birth, rank, class, colour, creed, nationality, which have been erected
into so many walls and screens behind which man has hidden himself from
his fellow-man; he has turned them into sympathy-proof shelters and trenches
from which he wages against him a war of defence and aggression, war of
nations, war of continents, war of classes, war of colour with colour,
creed with creed, culture with culture. All this barbarism the idea of
the intellectual internationalist seeks to abolish by putting man face
to face with man on the basis of their common human sympathy, aims, highest
interests of the future. It is entirely futurist in its view; it turns
away from the confused and darkened good of the past to the purer good
of the future when man, at last beginning to become a truly intelligent
and ethical being, will shake away from him all these sources of prejudice
and passion and evil. Humanity will become one in idea and feeling, and
life be consciously what it now is in spite of itself, one in its status
on earth and its destiny.
The height and nobility of the idea is not to be questioned and certainly
a mankind which set its life upon this basis would make a better, purer,
more peaceful and enlightened race than anything we can hope to have at
present. But as the human being is now made, the pure idea, though always
a great power, is also afflicted by a great weakness. It has an eventual
capacity, once born, of taking hold of the rest of the human being and
forcing him in the end to acknowledge its truth and make some kind of
attempt to embody it; that is its strength. But also because man at present
lives more in the outward than in the inward, is governed principally
by his vital existence, sensations, feelings and customary mentality rather
than by his higher thought-mind and feels himself in these to be really
alive, really to exist and be, while the world of ideas is to him something
remote and abstract and, however powerful and interesting in its way,
not a living thing, the pure idea seems, until it is embodied in life,
something not quite real; in that abstractness and remoteness lies its
weakness.
The sense of this abstractness imposes on the idea an undue haste to get
itself recognised by life and embodied in a form. If it could have confidence
in its strength and be content to grow, to insist, to impress itself till
it got well into the spirit of man, it might conceivably become a real
part of his soul-life, a permanent power in his psychology and might succeed
in remoulding his whole life in its image. But it has inevitably a desire
to get as soon as possible admitted into a form of the life, for until
then it does not feel itself strong and cannot quite be sure that it has
vindicated its truth. It hurries into action before it has real knowledge
of itself and thereby prepares its own disappointment, even when it seems
to triumph and fulfil its object. For in order to succeed, it allies itself
with powers and movements which are impelled by another aim than its own,
but are glad enough to get its aid so that they may strengthen their own
case and claim. Thus when it realises itself at last, it does it in a
mixed, impure and ineffective form. Life accepts it as a partial habit,
but not completely, not quite sincerely. That has been the history of
every idea in succession and one reason at least why there is almost always
something unreal, inconclusive and tormented about human progress.
There are many conditions and tendencies in human life at present which
are favourable to the progress of the internationalist idea. The strongest
of these favourable forces is the constant drawing closer of the knots
of international life, the multiplication of points of contact and threads
of communication and an increasing community in thought, in science and
in knowledge. Science especially has been a great force in this direction;
for science is a thing common to all men in its conclusions, open to all
in its methods, available to all in its results: it is international in
its very nature; there can be no such thing as a national science, but
only the nations' contributions to the work and growth of science which
are the indivisible inheritance of all humanity. Therefore it is easier
for men of science or those strongly influenced by science to grow into
the international spirit and all the world is now beginning to feel the
scientific influence and to live in it. Science also has created that
closer contact of every part of the world with every other part, out of
which some sort of international mind is growing. Even cosmopolitan habits
of life are now not uncommon and there are a fair number of persons who
are as much or more citizens of the world as citizens of their own nation.
The growth of knowledge is interesting the peoples in each other's art,
culture, religion, ideas and is breaking down at many points the prejudice,
arrogance and exclusiveness of the old nationalistic sentiment. Religion,
which ought to have led the way, but owing to its greater dependence on
its external parts and its infrarational rather than its spiritual impulses
has been as much, or even more, a sower of discord as a teacher of unity,
- religion is beginning to realise, a little dimly and ineffectively as
yet, that spirituality is after all its own chief business and true aim
and that it is also the common element and the common bond of all religions.
As these influences grow and come more and more consciously to cooperate
with each other, it might be hoped that the necessary psychological modification
will quietly, gradually, but still irresistibly and at last with an increasing
force of rapidity take place which can prepare a real and fundamental
change in the life of humanity.
But this is at present a slow process, and meanwhile the internationalist
idea, eager for effectuation, allied and almost identified itself with
two increasingly powerful movements which have both assumed an international
character, Socialism and Anarchism. Indeed, it is this alliance that most
commonly went by the name of internationalism. But this socialistic and
anarchistic internationalism was recently put to the test, the fiery test
of the European war, and thus tried, it was found sadly wanting. In every
country, the Socialist party shed its internationalist promise with the
greatest ease and lightness, German socialism, the protagonist of the
idea, massively leading the way in this formidable abjuration. It is true
that a small minority in each country either remained heroically faithful
to its principles or soon returned to them, and as the general weariness
of the great international massacre grew, even the majority showed a sensible
turn in the same direction; but this was rather the fruit of circumstance
than of principle. Russian socialism, it may be said, has, at least in
its extremer form, shown a stronger root of internationalistic feeling.
But what it has actually attempted to accomplish is a development of Labour
rule on the basis of a purified nationalism, non-aggressive except for
revolutionary purposes and self-contained, and not on the larger international
idea. In any case, the actual results of the Russian attempt show only
up to the present a failure of the idea to acquire the vital strength
and efficiency which would justify it to life; it is possible to use them
much more as a telling argument against internationalism than as a justification
of its truth or at least of its applicability in the present stage of
human progress.
But what is the cause of this almost total bankruptcy of the international
ideal under the strong test of life? Partly it may be because the triumph
of socialism is not necessarily bound up with the progress of internationalism.
Socialism is really an attempt to complete the growth of the national
community by making the individual do what he has never yet done, live
for the community more than for himself. It is an outgrowth of the national,
not of the international idea. No doubt, when the society of the nation
has been perfected, the society of nations can and even must be formed;
but this is a later possible or eventual result of Socialism, not its
primary vital necessity. In the crises of life it is the primary vital
necessity which tells, while the other and remoter element betrays itself
to be a mere idea not yet ready for accomplishment; it can only become
powerful when it also becomes either a vital or a psychological necessity.
The real truth, the real cause of the failure is that internationalism
is as yet, except with some exceptional men, merely an idea; it is not
yet a thing near to our vital feelings or otherwise a part of our psychology.
The normal socialist or syndicalist cannot escape from the general human
feeling and in the test he too turns out, even though he were a professed
sans-patrie in ordinary times, in his inner heart and being a nationalist.
As a vital fact, moreover, these movements have been a revolt of Labour
aided by a number of intellectuals against the established state of things,
and they have only allied themselves with internationalism because that
too is an intellectual revolt and because its idea helps them in the battle.
If Labour comes to power, will it keep or shed its internationalistic
tendencies? The experience of countries in which it is or has been at
the head of affairs does not give an encouraging answer, and it may at
least be said that, unless at that time the psychological change in humanity
has gone much farther than it has now, Labour in power is likely to shed
more of the internationalist feeling than it will succeed in keeping and
to act very much from the old human motives.
No doubt, the European war itself was an explosion of all that was dangerous
and evil in successful nationalism, and the resulting conflagration may
well turn out to have been a purificatory process that has burned up many
things that needed to die. It has already strengthened the international
idea and forced it on governments and peoples. But we cannot rely too
greatly on ideas and resolutions formed in a moment of abnormal crisis
under the violent stress of exceptional circumstances. Some effect there
may be in the end, some first recognition of juster principles in international
dealings, some attempt at a better, more rational or at least a more convenient
international order. But until the idea of humanity has grown not only
upon the intelligence but in the sentiments, feelings, natural sympathies
and mental habits of man, the progress made is likely to be more in external
adjustments than in the vital matters, more in a use of the ideal for
mixed and egoistic purposes than at once or soon in a large and sincere
realisation of the ideal. Until man in his heart is ready, a profound
change of the world conditions cannot come; or it can only be brought
about by force, physical force or else force of circumstances, and that
leaves all the real work to be done. A frame may have then been made,
but the soul will have still to grow into that mechanical body.
Sri Aurobindo
in "Social and Political Thought" - "The Ideal of Human
Unity"
SABCL Volume 15
published by Sri
Aurobindo Ashram - Pondicherry
diffusion by SABDA
or
Lotus Light Publications
U.S.A. - Pages 525-530
|
[