|
Internationalism and Human Unity
The great necessity, then, and the great difficulty is to help this idea
of humanity which is already at work upon our minds and has even begun
in a very slight degree to influence from above our actions, and turn
it into something more than an idea, however strong, to make it a central
motive and a fixed part of our nature. Its satisfaction must become a
necessity of our psychological being, just as the family idea or the national
idea has become each a psychological motive with its own need of satisfaction.
But how is this to be done? The family idea had the advantage of growing
out of a primary vital need in our being and therefore it had not the
least difficulty in becoming a psychological motive and need; for our
readiest and strongest mental motives and psychological needs are those
which grow out of our vital necessities and instincts. The clan and the
tribe ideas had a similar origin, less primary and compelling, and therefore
looser and more dissoluble; but still they arose from the vital necessity
in human nature for aggregation and the ready basis given to it by the
inevitable physical growth of the family into clan or tribe. These were
natural aggregations, evolutionary forms already prepared on the animal
level.
The nation idea, on the contrary, did not arise from a primary vital need,
but from a secondary or even tertiary necessity which resulted not from
anything inherent in our vital nature, but from circumstances, from environmental
evolution; it arose not from a vital, but from a geographical and historical
necessity. And we notice that as one result it had to be created most
commonly by force, force of circumstances partly, no doubt, but also by
physical force, by the power of the king and the conquering tribe converted
into a military and dominant State. Or else it came by a reaction against
force, a revolt against conquest and domination that brought a slow or
sudden compactness to peoples who, though geographically or even historically
and culturally one, had lacked power of cohesion and remained too conscious
of an original heterogeneity or of local and regional and other divisions.
But still the necessity was there and the nation form after many failures
and false successes got into being, and the psychological motive of patriotism,
a sign of the growth of a conscious national ego, arose in the form as
the expression of its soul and the guarantee of its durability. For without
such a soul, such a psychological force and presence within the frame,
there can be no guarantee of durability. Without it, what circumstances
have created, circumstances easily will destroy. It was for this reason
that the ancient world failed to create nations, except on a small scale,
little clans and small regional nations of brief duration and usually
of loose structure; it created only artificial empires which went to pieces
and left chaos behind them.
What then of this international unity now in the first obscure throes
of the pre-formatory state resembling a ferment of cells drawing together
for amalgamation? What is the compelling necessity behind it? If we look
at outward things only, the necessity is much less direct and much less
compelling than any that preceded it. There is here no vital necessity;
mankind as a whole can get on well enough without international unity,
so far as mere living goes; it will not be at all a perfect, rational
or ideal collective living of the race, - but after all where is there
yet any element in human life or society which is perfect, rational or
ideal? As yet at least none; still we get on somehow with life, because
the vital man in us, who is the dominant element in our instincts and
in our actions, cares for none of these things and is quite satisfied
with any just tolerable or any precariously or partly agreeable form of
living, because that is all to which he is accustomed and all therefore
that he feels to be necessary. The men who are not satisfied, the thinkers,
the idealists, are always a minority and in the end an ineffectual minority,
because though always in the end they do get their way partly, their victory
yet turns into a defeat; for the vital man remains still the majority
and degrades the apparent success into a pitiful parody of their rational
hope, their clear-sighted ideal or their strong counsel of perfection.
The geographical necessity for a unification of this kind does not exist,
unless we consider that it has been created through the drawing closer
together of the earth and its inhabitants by Science and her magical lessening
of physical distances and attenuation of barriers. But whatever may happen
in the future, this is as yet not sufficient; earth is still large enough
and her divisions still real enough for her to do without any formal unity.
If there is any strong need, it may be described - if such an epithet
can be applied to a thing in the present and the future - as a historical
necessity, that is, a need which has arisen as the result of certain actual
circumstances that have grown up in the evolution of international relations.
And that need is economic, political, mechanical, likely under certain
circumstances to create some tentative or preliminary framework , but
not at first a psychological reality which will vivify the frame. Moreover,
it is not yet sufficiently vital to be precisely a necessity; for it amounts
mainly to a need for the removal of certain perils and inconveniences,
such as the constant danger of war, and at most to the strong desirability
of a better international coordination. But by itself this creates only
a possibility, not even a moral certainty, of a first vague sketch and
loose framework of unity which may or may not lead to something more close
and real.
But there is another power than that of external circumstance which we
have a right to take into consideration. For behind all the external circumstances
and necessities of which we are more easily aware in Nature, there is
always an internal necessity in the being, a will and a design in Nature
itself which precedes the outward signals of its development and in spite
of all obstacles and failures must in the long end inevitably get itself
realised. Nowadays we can see this truth everywhere in Nature down to
her lowest forms; a will in the very seed of the being, not quite conscious
or only partially conscious in the form itself, but still present there
in Nature. It is subconscious or even inconscient if you like, but it
is still a blind will, a mute idea which contains beforehand the form
it is going to create, is aware of a necessity other than the environmental,
a necessity contained in the very being itself, and creates persistently
and inevitably a form that best answers to the necessity, however we may
labour to interfere with or thwart its operations.
This is true biologically, but it is also, though in a more subtle and
variable way, psychologically true. Now the very nature of man is that
of an individual who on one side is always emphasising and developing
his individual being to the extent of his power but who is also driven
by the Idea or Truth within him to unify himself with others of his species,
to join himself to them or agglutinate them to him, to create human groups,
aggregates and collectivities. And if there is an aggregate or collectivity
which it is possible for him to realise but is not yet realised, we may
be sure that that too in the end he will create. This will in him is not
always or often quite conscient or foreseeing; it is often largely subconscient,
but even then it is eventually irresistible. And if it gets into his conscious
mind, as the international idea has now done, we may count on a more rapid
evolution. Such a will in Nature creates for itself favourable external
circumstances and happenings or finds them created for it in the stress
of events. And even if they are insufficient, she will still often use
them beyond their apparent power of effectivity, not minding the possibility
of failure, for she knows that in the end she will succeed and every experience
of failure will help to better the eventual success.
Well then, it may be said, let us trust to this inevitable will in Nature
and let us follow out her method of operation. Let us create anyhow this
framework, any framework of the aggregate; for she knows already the complete
form she intends and she will work it out eventually in her own time;
by the power of the idea and our will to realise it, by help of strong
force of circumstances, by pressure of all kinds, by physical force even,
if need be, since that too seems still to be a part of her necessary machinery,
let us create it. Let us have the body; the soul will grow in the body.
And we need not mind if the bodily formation is artificial with at first
a small or no conscious psychological reality to vivify it. That will
begin to form itself as soon as the body has been formed. For the nation
too was at first more or less artificially formed out of incoherent elements
actually brought together by the necessity of a subconscient idea, though
apparently it was done only by physical force and the force of circumstances.
As a national ego formed which identified itself with the geographical
body of the nation and developed in it the psychological instinct of national
unity and the need of its satisfaction, so a collective human ego will
develop in the international body and will evolve in it the psychological
instinct of human unity and the need of its satisfaction. That will be
the guarantee of duration. And that possibly is how the thing will happen,
man being what he is; indeed if we cannot do better, it will so happen,
since happen somehow it must, whether in the worse way or the better.
It may be as well to review here briefly in the light of these considerations
the main possibilities and powers which are shaping us towards such an
end in the present world conditions. The old means of unification, conquest
by a single great Power, which would reduce part of the world by force
and bring the remaining nations into the condition of dependencies, protectorates
and dependent allies, the whole forming the basic structure of a great
final unification, - this was the character of the ancient Roman precedent,
- does not seem immediately possible. It would require a great predominance
of force simultaneously by sea and land, [Now also by air.] an
irresistibly superior science and organisation and with all this a constantly
successful diplomacy and an invincible good fortune. If war and diplomacy
are still to be the decisive factors in international politics in the
future as in the past, it would be rash to predict that such a combination
may not arise, and if other means fail, it must arise; for there is nothing
that can be set down as impossible in the chances of the future, and the
urge in Nature always creates its own means. But, at present, the possibilities
of the future do not seem to point in this direction. There is, on the
other hand, a very strong possibility of the whole earth, or at least
the three continents of the eastern hemisphere, being dominated by three
or four great empires largely increased in extent of dominion, spheres
of influence, protectorates, and thereby exercising a pre-eminence which
they could either maintain by agreements, avoiding all causes of conflict,
or in a rivalry which would be the cause of fresh wars and changes. This
would normally have been the result of the great European conflict.
But there has struck across this possibility a revived strength of the
idea of nationality expressed in the novel formula of the principle of
self-determination to which the great world-empires have had to pay at
least a verbal homage. The idea of international unity to which this intervention
of the revived force of nationality is leading, takes the form of a so-called
League of Nations. Practically, however, the League of Nations under present
conditions or any likely to be immediately realised would still mean the
control of the earth by a few great Powers, - a control that would be
checked only by the necessity of conciliating the sympathy and support
of the more numerous smaller or less powerful nations. On the force and
influence of these few would rest practically, if not admittedly, the
decision of all important debatable questions. And without it there could
be no chance of enforcing the decisions of the majority against any recalcitrant
great Power or combination of Powers. The growth of democratic institutions
would perhaps help to minimise the chances of conflict and of the abuse
of power, - though that is not at all certain; but it would not alter
this real character of the combination.
In all this there is no immediate prospect of any such form of unification
as would give room for a real psychological sense of unity, much less
necessitate its growth. Such a form might evolve; but we should have to
trust for it to the chapter of accidents or at best to the already declared
urge in Nature expressed in the internationalist idea. On that side, there
was at one time a possibility which seemed to be very suddenly and rapidly
growing into something more, the emergence of a powerful party in all
the advanced countries of the world pledged to internationalism, conscious
of its necessity as a first condition for their other aims and more and
more determined to give it precedence and to unite internationally to
bring it about. That combination of the intellectuals with Labour which
created the Socialist parties in Germany, Russia and Austria, formed anew
recently the Labour party in England and has had its counterparts in most
other European countries, seems to be travelling in that direction. This
world-wide movement which made internationalism and Labour rule its two
main principles, had already created the Russian revolution and seemed
ready to bring about another great socialistic revolution in central Europe.
It was conceivable that this party might everywhere draw together. By
a chain of revolutions such as took place in the nineteenth century and
of less violent but still rapid evolutions brought about by the pressure
of their example, or even by simply growing into the majority in each
country, the party might control Europe. It might create counterparts
of itself in all the American republics and in Asiatic countries. It might
by using the machinery of the League of Nations or, where necessary, by
physical force or economic or other pressure persuade or compel all the
nations into some more stringent system of international unification.
A World-State or else a close confederation of democratic peoples might
be created with a common governing body for the decision of principles
and for all generally important affairs or at least for all properly international
affairs and problems; a common law of the nations might grow up and international
courts to administer it and some kind of system of international police
control to maintain and enforce it. In this way, by the general victory
of an idea, Socialist or other, seeking to organise humanity according
to its own model or by any other yet unforeseen way, a sufficient formal
unity might come into existence.
The question then arises, how out of this purely formal unity a real psychological
unity can be created and whether it can be made a living oneness. For
a mere formal, mechanical, administrative, political and economic union
does not necessarily create a psychological unity. None of the great empires
have yet succeeded in doing that, and even in the Roman where some sense
of unity did come into being, it was nothing very close and living; it
could not withstand all shocks from within and without, it could not prevent
what was much more dangerous, the peril of decay and devitalisation which
the diminution of the natural elements of free variation and helpful struggle
brought with it. A complete world-union would have indeed this advantage
that it would have no need to fear forces from without, for no such forces
would any longer exist. But this very absence of outer pressure might
well give greater room and power to internal elements of disintegration
and still more to the opportunities of decay. It might indeed for a long
time foster an internal intellectual and political activity and social
progress which would keep it living; but this principle of progress would
not be always secure against a natural tendency to exhaustion and stagnation
which every diminution of variety and even the very satisfaction of social
and economic well-being might well hasten. Disruption of unity would then
be necessary to restore humanity to life. Again, while the Roman Empire
appealed only to the idea of Roman unity, an artificial and accidental
principle, this World-State would appeal to the idea of human unity, a
real and vital principle. But if the idea of unity can appeal to the human
mind, so too can the idea of separative life, for both address themselves
to vital instincts of his nature. What guarantee will there be that the
latter will not prevail when man has once tried unity and finds perhaps
that its advantages do not satisfy his whole nature? Only the growth of
some very powerful psychological factor will make unity necessary to him,
whatever other changes and manipulations might be desirable to satisfy
his other needs and instincts.
The formal unification of mankind would come in upon us in the shape of
a system which would be born, grow, come to its culmination. But every
system by the very nature of things tends after its culmination to decay
and die. To prevent the organism from decaying and dying there must be
such a psychological reality within as will persist and survive all changes
of its body. Nations have that in a sort of collective national ego which
persists through all vital changes. But this ego is not by any means self-existent
and immortal; it supports itself on certain things with which it is identified.
First, there is the geographical body, the country; secondly, the common
interests of all who inhabit the same country, defence, economic well-being
and progress, political liberty, etc. ; thirdly, a common name, sentiment,
culture. But we have to mark that this national ego owes its life to the
coalescence of the separative instinct and the instinct of unity; for
the nation feels itself one as distinguished from other nations; it owes
its vitality to interchange with them and struggle with them in all the
activities of its nature. Nor are all these altogether sufficient; there
is a deeper factor. There must be a sort of religion of country, a constant
even if not always explicit recognition not only of the sacredness of
the physical mother, the land, but also, in however obscure a way, of
the nation as a collective soul which it is the first duty and need of
every man to keep alive, to defend from suppression or mortal attaint
or, if suppressed, then to watch, wait and struggle for its release and
rehabilitation, if sicklied over with the touch of any fatal spiritual
ailment, then to labour always to heal and revivify and save alive.
The World-State will give its inhabitants the great advantages of peace,
economic well-being, general security, combination for intellectual, cultural,
social activity and progress. None of these are in themselves sufficient
to create the thing needed. Peace and security we all desire at present,
because we have them not in sufficiency; but we must remember that man
has also within him the need of combat, adventure, struggle, almost requires
these for his growth and healthy living; that instinct would be largely
suppressed by a universal peace and a flat security and it might rise
up successfully against suppression. Economic well-being by itself cannot
permanently satisfy and the price paid for it might be so heavy as to
diminish its appeal and value. The human instinct for liberty, individual
and national, might well be a constant menace to the World-State, unless
it so skilfully arranged its system as to give them sufficient free play.
A common intellectual and cultural activity and progress may do much,
but need not by themselves be sufficient to bring into being the fully
powerful psychological factor that would be required. And the collective
ego created would have to rely on the instinct of unity alone; for it
would be in conflict with the separative instinct which gives the national
ego half its vitality.
It is not impossible that the indispensable inner factor for this outer
frame might be increasingly created in its very process of growth, but
certain psychological elements would have to be present in great strength.
There would be needed, to make the change persist, a religion of humanity
or an equivalent sentiment much more powerful, explicit, self-conscious,
universal in its appeal than the nationalist's religion of country; the
clear recognition by man in all his thought and life of a single soul
in humanity of which each man and each people is an incarnation and soul-form;
an ascension of man beyond the principle of ego which lives by separativeness,
- and yet there must be no destruction of individuality, for without that
man would stagnate; a principle and arrangement of the common life which
would give free play to individual variation , interchange in diversity
and the need of adventure and conquest by which the soul of man lives
and grows great, and sufficient means of expressing all the resultant
complex life and growth in a flexible and progressive form of human society.
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 531-540
|