Royal Institute of Philosophy

The Organic State Author(s): G. R. G. Mure Source: Philosophy, Vol. 24, No. 90 (Jul., 1949), pp. 205-218 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Institute of Philosophy Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3747595 . Accessed: 14/10/2011 06:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and Royal Institute of Philosophy are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy.

http://www.jstor.org

THE ORGANIC STATE'

G. R. G. MURE (NVarden MertonCollege,Oxford) of

Is the State organic?Does it, or shouldit, in some way transcend the individual to of so natures its citizens, as itself be an individual who morecomplete ofhigher value thanthesingular and individuals it? Is it thusin somesensean organism, are its citizens and compose a value in somesenseorgansof it whichgain forthemselves higher it? and significance subserving in Or is the singular individualthe supremerealityand value in and humanaffairs, is the State, or oughtthe State to be, a mere or whichmen make and device,an instrument set of instruments, use forcertain but conjoint not common purposes? This is the oldestcontroversy political in and, I supphilosophy of The pose, the most fundamental. organictheory the State was maintained againstindividualist opposition Plato and Aristotle. by Hobbes and Locke in this In an age of revoltagainstAristotle, idealistsof the nineteenth and rejectedit; but the British country not early twentieth century upheldit, basingthemselves only on but Plato and Aristotle, also on Rousseau,Fichte,and Hegel. In fact theyarguedit withsuch successthat it might almostbe said in to have becomeorthodox British an although underphilosophy, of current individualist opposition persisted. always from That persisting in individualism, descending Englandmainly but and in Locke,was preached the nameofliberalism democracy; it signifies certain a thatT. H. in the term"liberalism" vagueness at himself liberal. a Green, anyrate,amongtheidealists proclaimed the and prosperous nineteenth In the relatively happy century Therewasno desperately was on thewholecalmly conducted. dispute acute senseof dividedpolitical aims,and no overmastering temptato motivesto each tion amongpoliticalthinkers imputemalicious that theoretical other.It was assumedin mostquarters differences existbetween menofgood will. might quiteproperly to But the relationof politicalphilosophy practicehas always and the disputein timesof been a disputedtheoretical question, is stress alwaysliable to turnintoa violent practical quarrel. Oppobecamestrong afterGermany's to bid sitionto the organictheory it dominate fanned Europe in I9I4. Her morerecentsecondeffort To the liberalindividualists Mussoto violencein Western Europe. State and Hitler'sThird Reich appearedto damn lini's corporate The the organictheory beyondredemption. idealistswereshouted
I

Lecture given at the Royal Instituteof Philosophy,February27th, I947.

205

PHILOSOPHY down. "The organicstate" became a termof abuse to be applied as eitherto what its enemiesregarded a productof false theory, or to a certaintype of existent state whichtheyfeltto be monwicked.The issue was not muchclarified the varying strously by of to attitudes politicalwriters Sovietpolicyand Marxist doctrine. the natureof the State is so near concerning To-day controversy to commonlife, so closely bound up with cruel memories and that thereis dangerof its degenerating and fears, hopes agonizing brawl. even in Englandintoa mereideological There is nothingto be said for a eunuchtheoryof political No man can reach true political conclusions cold thinking. by after all intellectual aside; by self-mutilation setting emotion insight does the mind achieves nothing.But straight political thinking a normal, and thatin balancedstateof the emotional demand self, is absent. consequence In modern writing often political conspicuously is of or in thehistory philosophy often neglected distorted theinterest to and philosophical of prejudice, analysisis perverted becomethe For of instrument propaganda. example, manygoodmen,I suppose, withtheliberal sentiments in willsympathize expressed Dr. Popper's and but whohas seriously book,TheOpenSociety itsEnemies, nobody of studiedthe worksof the moreimportant thoseallegedenemies of Dr. One historian philosophy. would couldthink Poppera reliable to thathe had flung in indeed, scholarship thewinds thepursuit say, but of his thesis,could one be sure that he had had any to fling; could only be and Hegeliandoctrine his accountsof Aristotelian the from chargeof deliberate on caricature the plea that defended of on are founded an almostcomplete ignorance theoriginals. they of confusion the issue is my onlyexcuse fortrying The present someold arguments which seemto me to have to re-examine calmly I the in becomeobscured. shall tryonlyto defend organictheory less and thanthatin which a verygeneral form, in a form extreme have held it, againstwhat appearsto meto some of its supporters timesin which and be prejudice magnified sharpened the bitter by it I we live. Moreover, shall tryto defend onlyagainstthe liberaldoesstillbase theStateon theconsent which doctrine, individualistic whichbase the State I of its members. shall say littleof theories on force. moreassumptions than even this limitedtask requires To fulfil The organictheoryimpliesand dependson a I can here justify. in natureto mostof its contextcommon its general metaphysical it in main advocates.That contextdiffers Plato and Aristotle; is But thepolitical and notthesamein HegelandinBradley Bosanquet. have certain of theories all thesethinkers presupposimetaphysical them.If I weredefendand tionsin common, I cannot ignore wholly be The I theory should inlessdifficulty. individualist ingtheopposite 206

THE

ORGANIC

STATE

have on amongwhomcountmostof the liberals, politicalthinkers, the wholebeen empiricists, the empiricist loose to metasits and He physicaltheory. believesthat to findsuch truthas the human mindcan reachone has not to go farafieldbeyondthe factsconor or one denies fronting in observation introspection; he nowadays and metaphysics, holdingthat,save perhapsin mathematics logic -if he distinguishes them-there no further beyond is field presented is fact,and thatmetaphysics nonsense. If I wereto startby trying state a metaphysical to background in detail,I shouldneverbe done. RatherI shalllet it developitself as the argument seemsto require;and I shall get whathelp I can from Aristotle. makes plainerthan anybodyelse the He, I think, minimum whichthe organictheory demands,and the metaphysic of philosophy does not suggestthat his political theory history has grownobsolete with his detailed conception the physical of universe. a Thereis first veryold metaphysical whichariseswhen problem we ask what we mean by the term"individual."The individualist empirical philosopher gives it the roughcommon-sense commonly which all attachto it in everyday and is not overwe life, meaning anxiousto submit thismeaning criticism. to That is whyin politics he so often takes forgranted veryfacileequalitarianism. we a But mustprobea littledeeper.In a philosophical courttheproper place forcommon senseis thedock,or on occasionthewitness box, never thebench. I take it that to whatever individual attribute reflection is we on two characteristics: We think it as one and not many;i.e. as of (a) one amongmany,an exclusive unit.But (b) we further thinkof it as one qua a unity differences, of a concrete which unity;a character in a sensegivesthe individual natureof a universal. the It may at first look to us as if the moreimportant characteristic were (a), the individual'snegativeexclusionof otherindividuals. But reflection rather characteristic. that (b) is theessential suggests For surely what makesa man (or anything is else) individual that he is a unique synthesis certainelements characteristics, of or not so mucha unit as a unity.Yet as soon as one calls hima unique one findsthat one is basing his individuality (a) as on synthesis wellas on (b). Although of concrete which a notion unity differences, seemsto blendindividual and universal, appearsto be the essential of thisunityas significance individuality, it is hardto conceive yet otherindividual unities. uniqueexceptqua negatively excluding This old puzzle may continue trouble Suffice hereto say to us. it thaton thewhole when talk individualists aboutindividuals empirical of of whendefenders the theyare thinking themas units;whereas talkofindividuals rather unities, of organic theory theyare thinking
207

PHILOSOPHY and thatis to be remembered whenthe questionis raisedwhether the State is a higher individual thanthecitizen. must which Thereis a secondpointwith implications metaphysical be raised before we can advance. In Shakespeare'sCoriolanus "a Menenius Agrippacalls his fableof the bellyand the members tale." It was an allegory. take it to be plain,despiteoccaI pretty of sional misrepresentation the organictheoryby its opponents, be that the State can intelligibly called an organism first onlyby set that "by analogy"implies thata certain analogy;and secondly set terms one levelis analogically relatedto a certain ofterms of at series as levelofwhatis regarded somesortofdeveloping at another A developing described a seriesmay be provisionally of levels. as the firstand is a series in which the second term presupposes and a power,so to say, of the first, the third development, higher relateeach in thesamewayto itspredecessor. terms and subsequent of for term But the relation termto termis asymmetrical, the first the does not presuppose secondterm, does the secondnor any nor chemical its term So, presuppose successor. forexample, subsequent does not presuppose life,and lifedoes not presuppose composition doespresuppose doespresuppose andlife but life, sentience; sentience I elements. call the description provisional compounded chemically on not because I hope laterto improve it, but because I thinkwe series thatthe terms certain of shalldiscover developing important relationto one do not afterall stand in a perfectly asymmetrical Thereis perhapssomething the verynatureof developin another. our defies insight. mentwhich the Howeverthat may be, Plato was clearlyregarding State as the whenhe distinguished but notliterally by analogyan organism, elements thehuman in thespirited, therational and soul, appetitive, and gave to his ideal State a class structure analogousto whathe believedto be man's psychological make-up;and again whenhe that the wholeState shouldfeelthe joys and sorrows desiderated in of its severalmembers a manner analogousto thatin whichthe feelsas its own the pains and pleasures humanorganism sentient also feltin and by its variousparts. of The importance analogyto the organictheoryof the State In becomesveryclear in Aristotle. holdingman to be by nature to a socialanimal, and theStateto be prior theindividual nature by and nature" means in an orderof being or reality), (where"by of the structure the State as analogousto the in treating again follows Plato. But Aristotle's of structure thehumansoul,Aristotle his scale of degreesand phases,is a good deal series, developing Plato As moreelaboratethanhis master's. we all know,he charges The State, levels of humanassociation. withskipping intervening it of he says,is not just a community individuals: is a community 208

THE

ORGANIC

STATE

of communities. the family In and the villagegroupman enters, or of association, which himself progressively different finds stages in, culminate theState,thesovereign inclusive in and association. Plato, to out the family, ratherby attempting make his or by cutting had the and into family, ignored natural guardians auxiliaries a single of he difference humanassociation; had violatedthetrue progressive natureof man and thehumancommunity. Thisconfronts witha third us one difficulty, adummetaphysical the openingwordsof this article.What is the meaning bratedin here of the term"nature?" What is it that Plato and Aristotleto in indeed,politicaltheorists general-are trying discover?Is it of of thenature Statesas theyare,or thenature Statesas theyought to be? That again is an old familiar confusion puzzle,but infinite if follows it is not faced.We mustdigress consider but if we to it, of thatwe have examinethe outline Aristotle's we answer shallfind not strayed from mainroad. the far Analogical relation and developingseries pervade the entire Aristotelian system.Aristotlesees the universeas a hierarchy from God through and plantsdownto the men,brutes, descending elements and even belowthem,in stagesof whatforwant physical of a betterword I must call "developedness." These stages form a developing seriessuch that thereis analogicalrelationbetween but one stagedoes not temporally into one stageand another; pass another.On the otherhand,within each stage of "developedness" there temporal is in thishierarchy For, exceptions development. with hereirrelevant, each suchstagebetween God and theindeterminate matter which is fallsbelowthephysical elements, a genusofspecies; each genusis articulated into specieswhichAristotle and although as into an orderof "developedagain on the wholeregards falling thesingular ofeach speciesdo developin time. ness,"yet specimens a They developthrough cycleof phases up to the phase in which exhibit their which thecase ofan organism in form, they fully specific is its specific The their dissolution. and thendowntowards function, ofan organism its severalstagesfrom development through embryo up to adult, and thendown to old age and death,is the obvious of solution and biological inspiration thistheory, in it liesAristotle's of theproblem "is" and "ought-to-be." of The truenatureof the developing form is specimen the specific whichit willnot exhibit it is mature, until and whichit willcease to form nota mere whenit decays.Thus thespecific is fully exhibit class label but a norm,and the truenatureof the sprouting seed or thenewborn it aloneofwhich can be defined, babe, thatin terms is not whatit is now,but what,provided development its proceeds it Before and after climaxof its normally, willbe whenit matures. it and approximately. maturity is real onlyin a degree
B

209

PHI LOSOPHY whosedevelopment arrested thattheyneverfully is so Specimens are form, also in that degreeunreal; and at embodythe specific a certainlevel evil, which is not meredefect,can emerge.The i.e. specimen, can develop and yet so embodythe formas to be a perversion it. Such specimens unrealcomparedwith the of are as withthe defective normal, though compared theyhave a quasicharacter. positive Thusthecontrast "is" and "will-be" thedeveloping of in specimen is a fairly close loweranalogueof the contrast between"is" and and the contrastbetweenwhat the permanently "ought-to-be;" defective is, specimen and whatit wouldbe ifit couldfully embody a thespecific obvious form specific is,as I form,isyetmore analogue.The havesaid,a norm, ideal.In Aristotle's it an terminology,is notmerely the specimen's formal aloneof whichit can be cause,thatin terms it finalcause, that forthe sake of defined; is also the specimen's which develops. it The contrast "is" and "will-be" theimmature of in of and the contrast "is" and "would-be" the defective in specimen, of coursediffer from contrast "is" and "ought-tothe of specimen, and decay of the livingorganism the and be," becausethe growth defectof some organisms not due to volition;for are permanent mostorganisms have no will,and even in man his organic growth of defects independent his will,save are and decayand his physical to the limitedextentto whichhe can deliberately assistor hinder the naturalprocess him,actingwhenhe does so in largemeasure in upon it. externally answerto the questionof the State's Here, then,is Aristotle's tries truenature,to the problem whether politicalphilosopher the to discover what States are or what theyoughtto be. He denies thedisjunction: to Onlyby reference an idealto which theyapproximatecan youunderstand judgeactual States; onlyby studying and actual States can you elicitthat ideal criterion termsof which in alone you can understand and judge them.And again, since man is by nature, ideallyand in his truenature, social animal,it i.e. a is onlyby reference the State,ultimately an ideal State,that to to the you can understand natureof actual man; but it is only by actual humannaturethat you can elicitthe truenature studying of the State. on Aristotle So we return the mainroad. For theground which to out of turns of baseshissolution theproblem "is" and "ought-to-be" to be precisely the groundon whichhe holds that the State is man of is individual organic, the higher development meresingular intopossession his truenature. of solutionof a We have discoveredalso more than Aristotle's on in We problem politicalphilosophy. have stumbled his answer to thedoubleproblem the a prioriand theempirical logic,and of in
210

THE

ORGANIC

STATE

offactand value in any concrete and philosophy; we have seenthis to be boundup witha conception theuniverse a certain of as answer sortofhierarchy, certain a sortofscale ofreality. of We can now perhapssum up the minimum metaphysical prewhich organic the of supposition theory the State entails. It mustfirst all assume that we can only understand of philothe we in sophically reality experience so faras we can gradeit in of or and terms development "developedness," thatthesedegrees of or are, development "developedness" at anyrateoutsidethe sphere of mathematics and naturalscience,in a broad sense degreesof value. it or Secondly, mustassumethatthe philosopher, at any ratethe can reasoneitherpurelya priorior politicalphilosopher, nowhere He into empirically. cannotdividehis subject-matter rigidly purely two spheres,the one in whichhe intuitsor thinksout a priori of he and in principles criteria value,theother which justinvestigates thefacts.Everywhere is somehow he in doingboththosethings one act of thought. can vary the emphasisa good deal, but if he He comes to believethat his resultsin eitherof theseonlyrelatively have been reachedwithout aid of any insight the separatespheres into the other,thenhe is deceived.He has forgotten thereis that a tingeof the empirical his ideal criterion alwaysa in and always touchof ideal interpretation his facts.In otherwords,although in Aristotle's of of is solution the problem "is" and "ought-to-be" in some sense a circle,nevertheless circlecannotbe brokenby the oneself on nor impaling firmly one hornof the dilemma, by sitting on each. Yet thereremainsa residueof paradox in alternately Aristotle's circular of So solution theproblem. muchindeedI hinted is thatthere perhaps in something the verynatureof by suggesting whichdefies humaninsight. development It is timethat we attackedthe centreof our subject.The main in argument favourof the organictheorylies, I suppose,in the State's attribute sovereignty. of Equally on a liberaland on an organictheory, any act of State claims the consent,and where the of as necessary activeobedience, all citizens such.Yet whenthe acts the agent cannot,I think, any fraction even the State be or sum total of the adult singular individual as citizens such. For no claim to obediencewould logicallyfollow.Take first the extreme case: assumeuniversal and with referendum, suffrage, a unanimous in of no abstentions, favour universal Here conscription. thesovereign be But if agent might said to have been the sum total of citizens. votedas singular thevoters the wouldamount individuals, plebiscite to no morethan a merestatement that at the moment voting of favoured If conscription. any voter changedhis mind everybody next day, thereis no reasonbut fearof force, whichwe are not
2II

PHILOSOPHY to considering, he shouldnot refuse serve.If a man is in his why real naturejust a singular and no more,he cannotbind individual his ownwilland accepta moralclaimon his obedience whichshall his be valid even if he shouldchangehis mindand regret previous common decision.Onlyif his will is in its truenaturean activity to himself differentiated himself and others, in and others, though much to can a man even bind himself a promise his neighbour, by less accept obligation obey a law or decreeof the State. But if to therebe a real will commonto, but differentiated men acting in, in that surely something is individual a sensemorereal politically, it the thanthesenseinwhich singular manis individual: is individual be not qua a unitbut qua a unity.And what can sovereignty but this? For sovereignty assuredly impliesunity,and the sum total of citizens, all happening to vote the same way,is not a unitybut whichcannotbe exercising a mereaggregate sovereign power. fromsovereignty vote the argument In the case of a majority is stronger, at least moreobvious.Unlesssome real community or on of willlinksall who vote,whatpossibleclaimhas the majority If the obedienceof the dissenting minority? the act of State is act allegedto be the sovereign of one or of a few,of an absolute thereis again no claimto obedienceautocrator of an oligarchy, of is is there indeedno trueState-unless there realcommunity will betweenrulersand ruled; i.e. unlessin beingruledas opposedto himself. a beingmerely compelled man is in some measureruling if is The mostrudimentary self-controlnotpossible menare singular no naturebeyondcertaincommon individuals possessing universal which to them. serveas marks classify characteristics The here reallyturnson the natureof freedom. The argument as individualfreedom the highest liberal individualist, regarding for as institutions instruments securing value,sees all governmental it and preserving and feelsthat by the organictheory is most it, He threatened. takes the "Don't fenceme in" view of dangerously He freedom. will concede,as J. S. Mill concedesin the Essay on but of somerestriction liberty, that, thatgovernment entails Liberty, he willallege,is onlybecause menlivingcheekby jowl may tread there no on each other'stoes, and if theyexercised self-restraint for in theendbe less liberty all. might One mightreplythat although institutions, legisgovernmental services, lative, executive,and judicial, and government military and civil,do in different waysserveeach one of us as instruments to or whenwe obtaina passport callina policeman protect -as, e.g., as we are governed wellas servedby theseinstitutions, us-yet (a) members themthese of and (b) to thosewho are actual operative are institutions notmeansand instruments they exceptaccidentally: live. But of are the special forms social lifewhichtheirmembers
212

THE

ORGANIC

STATE

that replywill perhapsnot convinceuntilwe raise again the old questionoffreedom. It has alwaysproveddifficult a liberalto define for withfreedom the out introducing idea of caprice; difficult a even though liberal as of thinks freedom freedom conscience. of so Freedom, in general runstheliberal-individualist ofthought, theopposite comline is of in and an act is free so faras it proceeds from uncompelled pulsion, But here thedifficulty which liberal, thatsympathy choice. lies the in which themostattractive is withtheoppressed partofhismake-up, If shirks. ex hypothesi man's another so often alien,whether nothing will the event,compels free conflicting or an accidental agent,what which his does in fact determine choice betweenthe alternatives But choiceimplies?Clearly in something himself. what? A passing to impulseto whichhe choosescapriciously yield? If so, his act is still almost accidentally compelled, thoughnot quite, since someis whatdetermines the in thingofhimself expressed it. If,however, choiceof the freeagentis something him,or of him,morethan in if of a passing impulse, it is an habitualattitude mindand character, thena paradoxarises.In thislattercase his act is verymuchmore to his own than was his yielding an impulse, because it expresses But it the muchmoreofhimself. the moreofhimself expresses less, is it an act of choice.Choice,it wouldseem,is excludednot surely, of but necessity onlyby externalcompulsion also by the internal a man's own nature.Yet whenis an act freeif not whenit flows the from wholenatureof theagent? Here, then,is the dilemma: (a) A freeact appears to involve in a choice,but (b) acts are free so faras theyexpress man'snature, i.e. so far as in themhe is self-determining not capricious.I and seem to These two characteristics bothto be essential freedom, but to be present an actionin inverse in appear proportion. to It seemsimpossible abandon (b): we mustsay that an act is from natureofthe agent.But we must the freein so faras it flows we insist abandon(b)unless that,as Aristotle saw,theagent'snature is not something whichhe unambiguously qua possessesin himself If we deny man's natureto be an ideal lying individual. singular to ahead of him,ifwe denythathe is in any senseorganic a unity we reducehimto a rigidunit,an his singular then nature, beyond of atomto whom from Stateto thefamily the membership anygroup himto something is merely we not accidental; reduce simply recognizableas a man. his Yet theliberalindividualist, resting case on (a), willprobably that truefreedom retortthat on the view consists a self-deterin without has just disappeared will the individual universal mining trace.He willsay thattheobviousfactsofconflict havebeensimply
of on Cp. thetwo characteristics the individualdistinguished p. 207 above. 213

PHILOSOPHY He ignored. willask, as has been vainlyasked of Rousseau,how,if will clash therebe this universal real will,can a man's particular withit or withtheparticular willsofothermen?Whyis thereever Is or in will, any dispute political theory practice? notthisuniversal ifit is allegedto be a good will,just an illusion?Is it not rather in fact,whenit does exist,a will forevil? And he will pointin illusthe to to tration the tyrannies, the Fascist State of Mussolini, Nazi the State of Hitler, Communist State of Stalin. I will try to re-state-perhaps even in a sense to modify-the but I will first conin orderto meetthisobjection, organic theory is to sidertheappeal to thedictator which notdifficult answer. State, was Nazi Germany not an organic State.I It mustnot be forgotten the that the State can be termed organiconlyby analogy.Within Nazi community, afterworldconquestin the spiritof a striving to bore no real resemblance Germans Niiremberg rally,individual of a unityhigherand more developedthan the singular organs mass to individual. Blind,undifferentiated loyalty a dictator-mass felt consciously and gloriedin as such-is not loyalty,moreover, fuller any sortof synthesis givingthe individual scope at a higher him to a level below his everyday indilevel. It merely depresses is The intensity an emotion no testof its quality,and of viduality. of this is just the mass emotionof a crowd.The working such a is but the personalwill of the dictatorusing community nothing which The functions individuals mereinstruments. instrumental as are they perform based not on rationalconsentbut on a sort of inducedfanaticism; and if the patientwakes up and hypnotically his swift removalto a concentration camp makes questions orders, it evident failsthedictator's thatas soonas thissubrational consent restson nakedforce. government Yet if the illustration failsthe objectionremains.I would still thattheideal ofa higher maintain in consciously the unity operates life social and political of man. It is certainly a mereregulative not it in ideal: just becauseit does operate conduct is so farreal. On the never beenand never has other thatthere hand,it mustbe conceded will be fullconsciousness such a politicalunityin the mindsof of real: it is an ideal,like men.For even the State as suchis notfully other human with empirical. unity the Its ideal,tinged depends every stillalwayson its beinga unit.In otherwords, maybe conceded it he thattheliberal, end although has holdofthewrong ofthestick, at least holds an end of it. Human affairs make no sense unless is related. structure a developing of series levelsanalogically political level in principle, and explainsits pretranscends Every ideally, of and decessor;is the higher development its predecessor "ought" to supersede as maturity But to supersede adolescence. it, "ought"
' Nor,incidentally, the Nazis ever officially did of claim the authority Hegel. 2I4

THE

ORGANIC

STATE

theselevels,the higher does not fully as men actuallyexperience on transcend and supersedethe lower.We live somehow two-or, and indeed,morethan two-levels at once. Moreover, the pointis not just as a residuebetokening crucial,the lowerstage survives either theoretical of or failure insight ofwill,but as theindispensable thestagewhich"ought"to have superseded subserving complement it as it. Thus,ifI am right, looks,as I suggested before, iftherelation serieswereafterall not perfectly betweentermsof the developing Thereseemsto be a not fully solubleproblem the in asymmetrical. natureofdevelopment. I That willsoundobscure. willtryto illustrate thesis, my starting it. outsidethepoliticalsphere and gradually approaching it. We perceive physical a object,and we understand WhenI say, is a house,"thehearer thatat leasttwodistinguishable "That knows are withmysenses,and activities goingon in me. I am perceiving I am judgingthat an object, whichis at least in some measure identicalwith my perceivedobject, is a house, a thingwhichis but of not a merecontent sense-perception an object of obviously willfurther realizethatI lookedand perceived The thought. hearer in orderto judge; forthe immediate purposeof judgingone's peran ceived worldis to develop it into an intellectual, understood, But in thisno mancan everfully exhaust succeed.Onecannot world. it intellectualize and understand in sensuouscontent thought, fully residue and not it. A sensuous remains, remains as a meremonument but as an indispensable to failure, auxiliaryto eke out and comthinking. plement of and nowtheproblem thought itslinguistic Consider expression, whichis perhapsin the end the same problem. Languageis always deveIt moreor less sensuous. developsin us as imagination either we Thus it precedes and is pre-supposed thought: develop by lops. But to and speaking thinking. as in the case of perception through is For the relation not just asymmetrical. languagesurjudgment, of as indisvives modified the indispensable expression thought, for but the notmerely communication, for actualcompletion pensable We and ofour thought. do not think thoughts thenclothe complete themin wordsin orderto pass themon. Untilwe have expressed in our thought wordswe do not knowwhat it is, because untilit it is expressed is notcomplete. mere the between and Take nexttherelation impulse will, problem freedom. develops a basis Will we in on which touched discussing on a of from germ impulse. or ofimpulse, rather Simpleminded perhaps of have triedto reducean act of will to the victory the thinkers Not quite so simpleminded impulses. amongconflicting strongest have regardedthe essenceof will as a powerof choice thinkers between conflicting impulses.But even the second explanation
215

PHILOSOPHY the of ignores factthatthe willis a development impulse:it is not thesceneas a deusex machina the act ofa subjectcoming and upon whichimpulseit will sanction, whichit will choosingexternally self The impulsive of conflicting desiresis the undeveloped repress. will,and it is the will whichexplainsthe impulsive self,not vice is versa.But againtherelation notquiteasymmetrical. developThe self and mentof the impulsive intowillis nevercomplete, as sense to side survives complement on the cognitive so understanding, the to self persistsindispensably complement and subserve impulsive self thewill.No doubtthepersisting it impulsive is modified; differs the before after willemerges, as thehalfarticulate and just language towards differs the from mot in whichwe struggle thought juste in we our But as which successfully complete thought. it persists a self ofimpulse. lets somelightin on the socialand political That perhaps puzzles which us intoconflict vex boththeoretical practical. inpursuit If and to level quite of the ideal you tryto force development the higher defeatyourown ends. You reach a lowerand intransigently, you a not a higher unityof individuals, lowerunitywhichis not even You get not a harmless like that of a healthy biologicalorganism. ofantsorbeesbuttheperverted, dictator community pseudo-organic State. You mustnot trywhollyto sweep away the lowerlevels, surviveto complement because in human affairs theynecessarily the To and loyalties and subserve higher. devoteall one's energies ideal besidewhichprivate to the serviceof the State is a glittering the motive,indeed most othermotives,can be enterprise, profit which made to look everso meanand ugly.But thetruth thatideal If in theory practiceyou pursue or embodiesis a half-truth only. it this half-truth the whole truth, will develop into disastrous as will findthat by cutting out the lesser In you perversion. theory have cruellycaricatured humannature. intervening loyaltiesyou of if number your a In practice, you succeedin persuading sufficient a slave in thepseudoto fellows act withyou,you willfind yourself worsefor State-or, whichmaybe morally you,its tyrant. organic theopposite halfhand,youintransigently If,on theother pursue route.The ironic truth, by you willmeetthe same disaster another the between actual SovietState paradoxof our timeis thecontrast and the Marxianideal of a classlesssocietyin whichgovernment credible thata rational has withered beingshould away.It is scarcely but to nowsupposetheformer be a stage on the way to the latter, is millennium to see how the paradoxoccurs nothard.The Marxian value of It ad the is a reductio absurdum liberalism. assumes supreme of the singularindividualas such, conceiving libertyin purely the It from interference. ignores lesson negativetermsas freedom the primary of humanlifeis the disof all history that problem
216

THE

ORGANIC

STATE

of as tribution powerand not of wealth,and regards government deviceto be discarded whenwealthhas been equalized a temporary of the But through so-called dictatorship theproletariate. itis literally to to The economic preposterous alloweconomics dominate politics. level is lowerthan the political,even thoughtheirrelationis not The to asymmetrical. attempt a community discard completely by is of government as fatal as the abandonment self-control an by it individual.Power,if the problemof distributing is neglected, in concentrates the wrongplace. That is the originof inevitably even if you label it "dictatorship the and tyranny, of tyranny, is proletariate," not a step towardsa societywithoutclass or two and simply demongovernment; factswhichPlato veryclearly strated theRepublic. in whether the problemof distributing Thus equal ruin threatens be solved brutally and crudely State worship shirked or power by the equal rightsof all singular individuals such. as by upholding be Yet, thoughhierarchy the solutionwhichhumannatureitself it is demands,the claimof the lesserloyalties, mustbe admitted, world.Of courseit is clear that in the modern urgent particularly these lesserloyaltiesand interests-private conproperty, family withloyalty theState. conflict and so on-may mostevilly to cerns, that the directserviceof It is clear,too, as Plato feltso strongly, freedom the State maygivea mana blessednegative from petty the strifes jealousiesof the lowerand narrower and levelsof cramping servant probably sometimefelt has at every association; goodpublic that. But even so the serviceof the State is not a perfect freedom and intelligently perwhichcan stand alone,however men loyally withthe greater, they it. form The lesserloyalties but may conflict have theirown peculiarvalues which,as Aristotle retorted upon residuein the greater without Plato, cannotbe absorbedwithout a grossviolationof humannature.The lowerlevels of association more latitude for mere arbitrary afford choice,but withoutthe survivalfroma lowerlevel of a primafacie irrelevant of element the of and evencaprice, morerealfreedom self-determination choice, Without underlying willinevitably turn intoits opposite. an balance ofactually interests becomes conflicting government operant tyranny. I thinkthereis nothing cynicalin thisview. The lesserloyalties becausein thedecent citizen arenotpurely are selfish, they modified; and the willis complementing subserving developed just as impulse raw impulse. from modified differs and from nation-state the If we extendthe politicalproblem the to seemsto be no goodreasonwhytheorganic world-and there theory to mustassumethe nation-state be in principle upper limitof the association-thesameholdstrue.That a world statecannot political as be created a deviceseemsnowto havebecomesufficiently obvious.
217

PH ILOSOPHY If it ever comes to be, it will springfroma universalwill as a of realization man's naturefuller thanthe nation-state, it will and claim a higher than the nation-state. But it will not then loyalty abolish all lesserloyalties.Conceiveit as annihilating patriotism, as and it becomesas impracticable Plato's ideal State afterthe of not becauseloyaltyto a nation-state abolition the family merely wouldbe a necessary stageon the way to loyaltyto a world-state, some surviving but because without balance of actuallyconflicting a wouldhave no stability. nationalinterests world-state I have done littlemorethan repeata fewold arguments which too or I hope seemto me nowadays often forgotten misrepresented. at least to have removedany excuse forbelieving that if a man be holds this sort of doctrinehe must necessarily a reactionary to the of or desiring return mankind closedtribalsociety, a servile of state,or indeedany sortofState idolator. worshipper a Prussian If theStatebe organic themodified in senseI have giventhetermof I am notin factparticularly that enamoured theword-it follows the State is muchmorethan a device createdby an aggregate of individuals;but it does not followthat any actual shape of it is Even less does it follow nor final, thatideallyit is a closedsociety. withthepractical thatthe State,whichis concerned life,can claim of control over the non-practical activities considerable degree any of of its citizens.But the function the artistand the thinker in I to relation theStateraisesproblems which, soluble, believe, though alongthesame lines,are beyondthescopeofthisarticle.

218