Organic State

8/3/2019 Organic State

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/organic-state 1/15

Royal Institute of Philosophy

The Organic StateAuthor(s): G. R. G. MureSource: Philosophy, Vol. 24, No. 90 (Jul., 1949), pp. 205-218Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Institute of PhilosophyStable 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 [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Royal Institute of Philosophy are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to Philosophy.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rip

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3747595?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3747595?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rip

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup



THE ORGANIC STATE'G. R. G. MURE (NVardenf MertonCollege,Oxford)

Is the Stateorganic?Does it,or should t,in somewaytranscendthe ndividual atures f tscitizens,o as itself o be an individualmore ompletendofhigher alue than he ingularndividuals hocomposet? Is it thus nsome ense n organism,ndare tscitizensinsomesenseorgans f t which ainfor hemselves higher alue

and significancen subservingt?Or is the singularndividual he supreme eality nd value inhuman ffairs,nd is theState,or ought he Stateto be, a meredevice, n instrumentr set of nstruments,hichmenmakeandusefor ertain onjoint utnot common urposes?

This s theoldestcontroversynpolitical hilosophynd, I sup-pose,themostfundamental.he organic heory f the State wasmaintainedgainst ndividualistpposition y Plato andAristotle.In an age of revoltagainstAristotle, obbes and Locke in thiscountry ejectedt; but theBritish dealists f thenineteenthndearlytwentiethentury pheld t, basingthemselves ot onlyonPlato and Aristotle,ut also on Rousseau,Fichte, nd Hegel. Infactthey rgued t with uchsuccess hat t might lmostbe saidto havebecome rthodoxnBritish hilosophy,lthoughn under-currentf ndividualistppositionlwayspersisted.

Thatpersistingndividualism,escendingnEnglandmainly romLocke,waspreachednthenameof iberalismnddemocracy; ut

it signifies certain aguenessn the term liberalism"hat T. H.Green, t anyrate, mong he dealists roclaimed imself liberal.In therelatively appyand prosperous ineteenthenturyhe

disputewasonthewhole almlyonducted. herewas nodesperatelyacutesenseof dividedpolitical ims, ndno overmasteringempta-tionamongpolitical hinkerso imputemaliciousmotives o eachother. t was assumed n mostquarters hattheoreticalifferencesmight uiteproperlyxistbetweenmenofgoodwill.

But the relation fpoliticalphilosophyo practicehas always

been a disputed heoreticaluestion, nd thedispute n timesofstresss always iable to turn nto violent ractical uarrel.Oppo-sition o theorganic heory ecamestrong fterGermany's id todominate urope n I9I4. Her morerecent econdeffortannedtto violencenWestern urope.To the iberal ndividualists usso-lini'scorporate tate and Hitler'sThird Reichappearedto damntheorganic heory eyond edemption.he idealistswere houted

I Lecturegivenat theRoyal InstituteofPhilosophy,February27th, 947.

205



PHILOSOPHY

down."The organic tate" became a termofabuse to be appliedeither o whatits enemies egarded s a product ffalsetheory,

or to a certain ypeof existent tatewhich heyfelt o be mon-strouslywicked.The issuewas notmuchclarifiedy thevaryingattitudes fpoliticalwriterso Sovietpolicy nd Marxist octrine.To-daycontroversyoncerninghe natureof the State is so nearto common ife,so closelybound up withcruelmemories ndagonizing opesand fears, hatthere s danger f tsdegeneratingeven nEngland nto mere deological rawl.

Thereis nothingto be said fora eunuchtheory f politicalthinking.No man can reach true politicalconclusions y cold

intellectualnsightfterettingll emotionside;byself-mutilationthe mindachievesnothing.But straight oliticalthinking oesdemand normal, alanced tateoftheemotionalelf, nd that nmodernoliticalwritingsoftenonspicuouslybsent. nconsequencethehistoryfphilosophysoften eglectedrdistortednthe nterestofprejudice,nd philosophicalnalysis s pervertedo becometheinstrumentfpropaganda. orexample,many oodmen, suppose,will ympathize ith he iberal entimentsxpressednDr.Popper'sbook,TheOpen ocietynd tsEnemies,utnobodywhohasseriouslystudied heworks fthemore mportantfthoseallegedenemiescould hink r. Popper reliable istorianfphilosophy.newould

say, ndeed, hathe hadflungcholarshipo thewindsnthepursuitofhisthesis, ouldonebe surethathe had had anyto fling; uthis accountsof Aristoteliannd Hegeliandoctrine ouldonlybedefended rom hecharge fdeliberate aricaturen theplea that

they refoundedn an almost ompletegnorancef theoriginals.The present onfusionf theissue s my onlyexcusefor rying

tore-examinealmly omeoldarguments hich eem o meto havebecomeobscured. shalltryonlyto defend heorganic heoryna verygeneral orm,nd ina formessextremehanthat nwhichsomeof ts supportersaveheld t,againstwhatappearsto metobe prejudicemagnifiednd sharpened ythebitter imes nwhichwe live.Moreover, shalltry o defendt only gainst he iberal-individualisticoctrine, hich oesstill asetheStateonthe onsentofitsmembers. shallsay littleof theorieswhichbase theStateonforce.

To fulfilventhis imited askrequiresmoreassumptionshanI can here ustify. he organic heorymplies nd dependson a

metaphysicalontext ommonn its generalnature o mostof tsmainadvocates.That contextdiffersn Plato and Aristotle;t isnot he ame nHegel nd nBradleyndBosanquet. utthepoliticaltheories fall these hinkersavecertainmetaphysicalresupposi-tionsncommon,ndI cannotwhollygnorehem.f weredefend-

ing heoppositeheory should e in essdifficulty.he ndividualist

206



THE ORGANIC STATE

political hinkers,mongwhom ountmostof the iberals, aveonthe wholebeen empiricists,nd the empiricistitsloose to meta-

physical heory.He believes hatto find uchtruth s thehuman

mindcan reachone has notto go far afieldbeyond hefacts on-frontingne nobservation r ntrospection;rhenowadays eniesmetaphysics, olding hat,save perhaps n mathematicsnd logic-if hedistinguisheshem-there snofurtherield eyond resentedfact, ndthatmetaphysicss nonsense.

If I wereto startby tryingo statea metaphysicalackgroundindetail, shouldneverbe done.Rather shall et tdevelop tselfas theargumenteemsto require; nd I shallgetwhathelp can

fromAristotle. e, I think,makesplainer hananybody lse theminimummetaphysic hich heorganic heory emands, nd thehistory f philosophyoes not suggestthat his politicaltheoryhas grown bsoletewithhis detailedconception f the physicaluniverse.

There s first very ldmetaphysicalroblemwhich riseswhenwe ask what we meanby theterm individual."The individualistempirical hilosopherommonly ives it therough ommon-sensemeaningwhichwe all attachto it ineverydayife, ndis notover-

anxious o submit hismeaningo criticism. hatiswhy npoliticshe so often akesforgranted veryfacile qualitarianism.ut wemustprobe littledeeper. n a philosophicalourt heproper lacefor ommonense s thedock,or onoccasion hewitness ox,neverthebench.

I take t thattowhatevers individualwe attributenreflectiontwocharacteristics:a) We think f t as oneand notmany; .e. asone amongmany, n exclusive nit.But (b)we furtherhink f tas one

quaaunity

fdifferences,

concretenity;

character hichin a sensegives he ndividual henature f a universal.

It mayat firstook tous as ifthemore mportantharacteristicwere (a), the individual'snegative xclusion f other ndividuals.But reflectionuggests ather hat b)is theessential haracteristic.For surelywhatmakes man (oranythinglse) individuals thathe is a uniquesynthesisfcertain lements r characteristics,otso much unitas a unity.Yet as soonas one callshima uniquesynthesisne finds hatone is basinghis individualityn (a) as

well s on (b). Althoughoncrete nity fdifferences,notionwhichseems oblend ndividualnduniversal,ppears o be theessentialsignificancef ndividuality,et t is hardto conceive hisunity suniqueexcept ua negativelyxcludingtherndividual nities.

This oldpuzzlemaycontinueo trouble s. Sufficet here o saythat nthewholewhen mpiricalndividualistsalk bout ndividualsthey re thinkingf them s units;whereaswhendefendersf theorganicheoryalkof ndividualshey rethinkingather funities,

207



PHILOSOPHY

and that s to be rememberedhen hequestions raisedwhethertheState s a higherndividualhanthecitizen.

There sa second ointwithmetaphysicalmplicationshichmustbe raised beforewe can advance. In Shakespeare'sCoriolanusMeneniusAgrippa allshis fableofthebellyand themembersapretty ale." It was an allegory. take t to be plain,despite cca-sionalmisrepresentationf the organic heory y its opponents,first hat theState can intelligiblye calledan organismnlybyanalogy; ndsecondlyhat"by analogy" mplies hata certain etofterms t one evel s analogicallyelated o a certainetof termsat anotherevelofwhat sregardeds some ort fdevelopingeries

of levels.A developingeriesmaybe provisionallyescribed s aseriesin whichthe secondtermpresupposes he first nd is adevelopment, higher ower, o to say,ofthefirst,nd thethirdandsubsequenterms elate ach nthe amewayto itspredecessor.But the relation fterm o terms asymmetrical,or he first ermdoesnotpresupposehesecondterm, ordoes thesecondnoranysubsequenterm resupposetssuccessor.o, for xample, hemicalcompositionoesnotpresupposeife, nd lifedoesnotpresupposesentience; utsentienceoes

presupposeife,nd ife oespresuppose

chemicallyompoundedlements. call thedescriptionrovisionalnotbecause hope aterto improve n it,butbecause thinkweshalldiscover hattheterms fcertainmportantevelopingeriesdo not after ll stand n a perfectlysymmetricalelation o oneanother. here s perhaps omethingn theverynature fdevelop-mentwhich efies ur nsight.

However hatmaybe, Plato was clearly egardingheState asnot iterallyutby analogy n organism, henhedistinguishedhe

appetitive,he pirited,ndtherational lementsnthehuman oul,and gave to hisideal Statea classstructurenalogous o what hebelievedto be man's psychologicalmake-up; nd again whenhedesideratedhatthewholeState shouldfeelthe oys and sorrowsof tsseveralmembersn a manner nalogous o that nwhich hesentient umanorganismeels s its ownthepainsand pleasuresalso felt nandby tsvarious arts.

The importancef analogyto the organic heory f the Statebecomesveryclearin Aristotle.n holdingmanto be by nature

a social nimal, ndtheStatetobe prior o the ndividual ynature(where by nature"means n an orderof beingor reality), nd

again in treating he structuref the State as analogousto thestructuref the human oul,Aristotleollows lato.ButAristotle's

developingeries,his scale of degrees nd phases, s a good dealmore laborate hanhismaster's.As we all know,he charges latowithskippingnterveningevelsofhuman association. he State,he says, s not ust a communityf ndividuals:t is a community

208



THE ORGANIC STATE

ofcommunities.n thefamilynd thevillagegroupmanenters, rfinds imselfn,progressivelyifferenttagesofassociation,which

culminatentheState, he overeignnd nclusivessociation. lato,by cutting ut the family, r ratherby attemptingo makehisguardiansndauxiliariesnto single amily,ad gnoredhenaturalprogressiveifferencefhuman ssociation; ehadviolated hetruenature fmanandthehuman ommunity.

Thisconfrontss with thirdmetaphysicalifficulty,neadum-brated n theopeningwords of thisarticle.What is themeaninghereofthe term nature?"What is it thatPlato and Aristotle-indeed,political heoristsn general-aretryingo discover? s it

thenature fStates s they re,orthenature fStates s they ughtto be? That again s an old familiar uzzle,but infiniteonfusionfollowsf t is notfaced.We mustdigress o considert,but if weexamine heoutline f Aristotle'snswerweshallfind hatwehavenotstrayed arfromhemainroad.

Analogicalrelationand developing eries pervade the entireAristotelianystem.Aristotle ees the universe s a hierarchydescendingromGodthroughmen,brutes, ndplantsdownto the

physicallements nd even belowthem,n

stagesofwhatforwant

of a betterword mustcall "developedness." hese stagesforma developingeries uch that there s analogicalrelation etweenonestageand another; utonestagedoesnottemporallyass intoanother.On the otherhand,within ach stageof"developedness"inthishierarchyhere stemporal evelopment.or,with xceptionshere rrelevant,achsuchstagebetweenGodandthe ndeterminatematterwhich alls elow hephysical lements,s a genus f pecies;and although achgenus s articulatedntospecieswhichAristotle

againon thewholeregards s fallingntoan order f"developed-ness,"yetthesingularpecimensf eachspecies o developntime.Theydevelopthrough cycleofphasesup to thephase in whichthey xhibit ullyheirpecificorm, hichnthe aseof norganismis itsspecificunction,ndthendown owardsheir issolution.hedevelopmentfan organismhroughtsseveral tagesfrommbryoup to adult,and thendownto old age and death, s the obviousbiologicalnspirationfthis heory,ndin tliesAristotle'solutionoftheproblemf "is" and "ought-to-be."

The truenatureof thedeveloping pecimens thespecific ormwhich twillnotexhibit ntil t is mature, ndwhich t willceasefully oexhibitwhen t decays.Thus thespecificormsnota mereclass label but a norm, nd thetruenatureofthesproutingeedorthenewborn abe,that nterms loneofwhich tcanbe defined,is notwhat t is now,butwhat,providedtsdevelopmentroceedsnormally,twillbe when tmatures. efore nd after ts climax fmaturityt is realonly na degree ndapproximately.

B 209



PHI LOSOPHY

Specimens hosedevelopments arrested o thattheynever ullyembody he specific orm, re also in thatdegreeunreal;and at

a certain evel evil,which s not meredefect, an emerge.Thespecimen,.e. can developand yet so embody he form s to bea perversionf it. Such specimensre unrealcomparedwiththenormal, hough s comparedwith hedefectiveheyhave a quasi-positive haracter.

Thusthe ontrastf"is" and"will-be"nthedevelopingpecimenis a fairly lose loweranalogueofthe contrast etween is" and"ought-to-be;" nd the contrastbetweenwhat the permanentlydefectivepecimens,andwhat t wouldbe if t couldfully mbodythe pecificorm,isyetmore bviousnalogue.Thepecificorms, shavesaid, norm,nideal. nAristotle'serminology,t snotmerelythespecimen's ormal ause,that n termsloneof whicht canbedefined;t is also the specimen's inal ause,that forthe sake ofwhich tdevelops. hecontrastf is" and"will-be"nthe mmaturespecimen,nd thecontrast f "is" and "would-be"nthedefectivespecimen, fcoursediffer rom hecontrast f "is" and"ought-to-be," because thegrowthnd decayof the iving rganismnd the

permanentefect f some

organismsre not due to

volition;for

mostorganisms aveno will, nd even n manhisorganic rowthanddecayandhisphysical efectsreindependentfhiswill, aveto thelimited xtent o whichhe can deliberatelyssistorhinderthenatural rocessnhim, ctingwhenhe doesso inlargemeasureexternallypon t.

Here,then, s Aristotle'snswer o the questionof the State'struenature, o theproblemwhether hepoliticalphilosopherriesto discoverwhatStatesare or whattheyoughtto be. He denies

thedisjunction: nlybyreferenceoan idealto which hey pproxi-matecanyouunderstandnd udgeactualStates;onlybystudyingactual Statescan you elicit thatideal criterionn terms f whichaloneyou can understandnd judgethem.Andagain,since manis bynature, .e. ideally nd in his truenature, socialanimal, tis onlybyreferenceo theState,ultimatelyo an idealState,that

you can understandhenatureof actualman; but it is only bystudyingctualhumannature hatyou can elicitthetruenatureofthe State.

So wereturnothemainroad.For theground n whichAristotlebaseshis olutionftheproblemf"is" and"ought-to-be"urns utto be precisely he ground n whichhe holds that the State isorganic,s thehigher evelopmentf mere ingularndividualmanintopossession fhistruenature.

We have discovered lso morethan Aristotle's olutionof aproblemn politicalphilosophy.We have stumbled n his answertothedoubleproblemfthe a prioriandtheempiricaln ogic, nd

210



THE ORGANIC STATE

offact ndvalue nanyconcrete hilosophy;ndwehave seenthisanswer o beboundupwith conceptionftheuniverses a certain

sortofhierarchy,certain ortofscaleofreality.We can nowperhaps umup theminimumfmetaphysicalre-supposition hich heorganicheoryf the Stateentails.

It mustfirst f all assumethatwe can onlyunderstand hilo-sophicallyherealitywe experiencen so far s we can grade t interms fdevelopmentr"developedness,"ndthatthesedegrees fdevelopmentr"developedness"re,at anyrateoutside hesphereof mathematicsnd naturalscience, n a broadsensedegrees fvalue.

Secondly,tmust ssume hatthephilosopher,rat anyratethepoliticalphilosopher,an nowhere easoneither urely priori rpurely mpirically.e cannotdividehissubject-matterigidlyntotwo spheres, he one in whichhe intuits r thinks ut a prioriprinciplesndcriteriafvalue, heothernwhich e ust nvestigatesthefacts.Everywheree is somehow oingboththose hingsnoneact of thought.He can varythe emphasis gooddeal,but ifhecomesto believethathis results n either ftheseonlyrelatively

separate pheresave beenreachedwithout he aid of

anyinsightintotheother, henhe is deceived.He has forgottenhatthere salwaysa tingeoftheempiricaln his ideal criterionnd alwaysatouchof deal interpretationn hisfacts. n otherwords, lthoughAristotle'solution f theproblem f "is" and "ought-to-be"s insome sensea circle,neverthelesshe circlecannotbe brokenbyimpaling neself irmlyn onehorn fthedilemma, orby sittingalternatelyn each. Yet thereremains residueof paradox inAristotle'sircularolution ftheproblem.o muchndeed hinted

bysuggestinghatthere s perhaps omethingntheverynature fdevelopment hich efies uman nsight.It is time thatwe attacked hecentre f oursubject.The main

argumentn favourof the organic heory ies, I suppose, n theState's attribute f sovereignty.qually on a liberaland on anorganic heory, ny act of State claimsthe consent, nd wherenecessaryheactiveobedience, f all citizens s such.Yet when heState acts theagentcannot, think, e anyfractionr eventhesumtotal of the adultsingularndividual itizens s such.For no

claimto obediencewould ogically ollow.Take first he extremecase: assumeuniversaluffrage,nd a unanimous eferendum,ithnoabstentions,nfavourfuniversalonscription.ere he overeignagentmight e said to havebeenthesumtotal ofcitizens. ut ifthevoters oted s singularndividuals,heplebiscite ould mountto no morethana mere tatementhatat themoment fvotingeverybody avoured onscription.f any voterchangedhis mindnextday, there s no reasonbut fearof force,whichwe are not

2II



PHILOSOPHY

considering,hyhe shouldnotrefuse o serve. f a manis in hisrealnatureust a singularndividualnd no more,he cannotbind

his ownwilland accepta moral laimonhisobediencewhich hallbe valideven fhe should hangehismind nd regret ispreviousdecision.Only f hiswill s in its truenature n activity ommonto himselfnd others, hough ifferentiatedn himselfnd others,can a maneven bind himselfy a promise o hisneighbour, uchless acceptobligationo obeya law or decree f the State.But iftherebe a real willcommon o, but differentiatedn,menactingpolitically,hatsurelys somethingndividualn a sensemorerealthan he ense nwhich he ingularman s ndividual:t s ndividual

notqua a unitbut qua a unity.Andwhatcan sovereigntye butthis? For sovereigntyssuredly mpliesunity, nd the sumtotalofcitizens, appeningll to vote thesameway, s nota unitybuta mere ggregatewhich annotbe exercisingovereign ower.

In the case of a majority ote the argument rom overeigntyis stronger,r at least moreobvious.Unless omerealcommunityof will inks ll whovote,whatpossible laimhas themajoritynthe obedience f the dissentingminority?f the act of State is

allegedto be the

sovereignct ofone or ofa few, fan absolute

autocrat r ofan oligarchy,here s againno claimto obedience-theres indeednotrueState-unlesstheresrealcommunityfwillbetween ulers nd ruled; .e. unless n beingruledas opposedto

beingmerely ompelled manis in somemeasure ulinghimself.The most udimentaryelf-controlsnotpossiblefmen resingularindividuals ossessing o universal aturebeyond ertain ommoncharacteristicshich erve s marks o classifyhem.

The argument erereallyturns n thenatureof freedom. he

liberal ndividualist,egardingndividualfreedoms the highestvalue,seesall governmentalnstitutionss instrumentsor ecuringand preservingt, and feels hatby theorganic heoryt is most

dangerouslyhreatened. e takesthe"Don't fencemein" viewoffreedom. e willconcede, s J. S. Millconcedes n theEssay onLiberty,hatgovernmentntails omerestrictionf iberty,utthat,he willallege, s onlybecausemen iving heekbyjowl maytreadon each other's oes,and if theyexercisedno self-restraintheremightnthe end be less iberty or ll.

One might eply hatalthough overnmentalnstitutions,egis-lative,executive, nd judicial,and governmentervices,militaryand civil,do in differentaysserveeach oneof us as instruments-as, e.g.,whenweobtain passport rcall na policemanoprotectus-yet (a) we aregoverneds well as servedbythese nstitutions,and (b) to thosewhoare actual operativemembers fthem heseinstitutionsrenotmeans nd nstrumentsxcept ccidentally:heyare thespecialforms f social lifewhich heirmembersive. But

212



THE ORGANIC STATE

thatreplywillperhapsnot convince ntilwe raiseagain the oldquestion ffreedom.

It has alwaysproveddifficultor liberal odefine reedom ith-out introducingheidea ofcaprice;difficultventhough liberalthinks f freedoms freedomfconscience. reedom,o in generalruns he iberal-individualistine ofthought,s theopposite fcom-pulsion, ndan act is freen so far s itproceeds rom ncompelledchoice.Buthere iesthedifficultyhich he iberal,nthat ympathywith heoppressed hich s themost ttractiveartofhismake-up,so often hirks.fexhypothesiothinglien,whethernotherman'sconflictingilloran accidental vent, ompels hefree gent,what

does in factdetermine is choicebetween he alternatives hichchoice mplies?Clearly omethingnhimself. ut what?A passingimpulse o whichhe chooses apriciouslyo yield? f so,hisact isstillalmostaccidentallyompelled, houghnot quite,sincesome-thing fhimselfs expressednit. If,however, hatdetermineshechoiceofthe free gent s somethingnhim, rofhim,more hana passingmpulse,f t s anhabitual ttitude fmind ndcharacter,then paradoxarises. n this atter asehisact is verymuchmorehis own thanwas his

yieldingo an

impulse,ecause t

expressesmuchmore fhimself. ut the more fhimselftexpresseshe ess,surely,s it an act of choice.Choice, twould eem, s excludednotonly by external ompulsion ut also by theinternal ecessity fa man's ownnature.Yet when s an act free fnot when t flowsfromhewholenature ftheagent?

Here, then, s the dilemma: a) A free ct appearsto involvechoice, ut b)actsare freenso far s they xpress man'snature,i.e. so far as in them he is self-determiningnd not capricious.I

Thesetwocharacteristicseemboth tobe essential o freedom,utappearto be presentn an action ninverse roportion.It seems mpossibleo abandon b): we must ay thatan act is

freenso far s itflows rom henature ftheagent.Butwemustabandon b)unlesswe nsist hat, s Aristotleaw,the gent'snatureis notsomething hichhe unambiguouslyossessesn himselfuasingularndividual.f we denyman'snature o be an ideal lyingaheadofhim, fwedenythathe is in anysenseorganic o a unitybeyondhissingular ature, henwereducehimto a rigid nit, n

atom o whommembershipf nygroup romheStatetothefamilyis merelyccidental;we reducehim o somethingimply otrecog-nizable s a man.

Yet the iberal ndividualist,esting iscase on (a), willprobablyretort hat on the viewthat truefreedomonsistsn a self-deter-mining niversalwill the individualhas just disappearedwithouttrace.He will aythat heobvious acts fconflictavebeen imply

Cp. thetwo characteristicsfthe ndividualdistinguishednp. 207above.

213



PHILOSOPHY

ignored.He willask,as has beenvainly sked ofRousseau,how, ftherebe thisuniversal ealwill,can a man'sparticularwillclash

with t orwith heparticular illsofothermen?Why s there veranydisputenpolitical heoryrpractice?s not thisuniversal ill,if t is alleged obe a goodwill, ustan illusion? s itnotrathernfact,when t does exist, willfor vil?Andhe willpoint n illus-tration o thetyrannies,o theFascistStateofMussolini,he NaziStateofHitler, heCommunisttateofStalin.

I will tryto re-state-perhaps ven in a senseto modify-theorganic heorynorder o meetthisobjection, ut I will firston-sider he ppealtothedictatortate,whichsnotdifficultoanswer.

Nazi Germany asnotan organic tate.I It mustnotbe forgottenthatthe Statecan be termed rganic nlyby analogy.Within heNazi community,trivingfterworldconquest n the spiritof aNiirembergally, ndividualGermans oreno real resemblanceoorgansof a unityhigher nd moredevelopedthan the singularindividual. lind,undifferentiatedass oyalty o a dictator-massloyalty,moreover,onsciously eltand gloried n as such-is notanysortofsynthesis iving heindividual ullercopeat a higherlevel. It merely epresses imto a level belowhis everydayndi-

viduality. he intensityfan emotions no test of tsquality, ndthis s just the mass emotion f a crowd.The workingfsuchacommunitys nothing ut thepersonalwill of the dictator singindividuals s mere nstruments.he instrumentalunctions hichthey performre based not on rational onsent ut on a sortofhypnoticallynducedfanaticism;nd ifthepatientwakesup andquestions isorders,wift emoval o a concentrationampmakesitevident hat s soonas this ubrationalonsent ails hedictator's

governmentests nnakedforce.Yet ifthe illustrationails the objection emains. wouldstillmaintainhatthe dealofa higher nity perates onsciouslynthesocialandpoliticalife f man. t is certainlyota mere egulativeideal: ustbecause t doesoperatenconductt is so far eal. Ontheotherhand, t must e concededhat here ever asbeen and neverwill be full onsciousnessf such a politicalunity n theminds fmen.ForeventheStateas such s notfully eal: it is an ideal, ikeevery ther umandeal, ingedwith he mpirical.tsunity epends

still lwayson itsbeing unit. n otherwords,tmaybe concededthat the iberal, lthough ehasholdofthewrongndofthestick,at least holdsan end of it. Humanaffairsmakeno senseunlesspoliticaltructuresa developingeries f evels nalogicallyelated.Everylevel in principle,deally, ranscendsnd explains ts pre-decessor; s thehigher evelopmentf tspredecessornd "ought"to supersedet,as maturityought"to supersededolescence. ut

' Nor, ncidentally,id the Nazis everofficiallylaim the authorityfHegel.

2I4



THE ORGANIC STATE

as menactuallyexperiencehese evels,thehigher oes not fullytranscend nd supersede helower.We live somehow n two-or,

indeed,morethantwo-levels at once.Moreover,nd thepoint scrucial, he lowerstagesurvivesnot just as a residuebetokeningfailureither ftheoreticalnsightr ofwill, utas the ndispensablecomplementubservinghestagewhich ought" ohavesupersededit.Thus, f amright,t ooks, s I suggestedefore,s if herelationbetween erms f thedevelopingerieswereafter ll notperfectlyasymmetrical.here eemsto be a notfully olubleproblemnthenature fdevelopment.

Thatwill oundobscure. willtry oillustratemythesis,tarting

outside hepolitical phere ndgradually pproachingt.Weperceive physical bject, ndweunderstandt.When say,"That sa house," hehearer nows hat t leasttwodistinguishableactivities regoing n inme. I am perceiving ithmysenses, ndI am judgingthat an object,which s at least in somemeasureidenticalwithmy perceived bject, s a house,a thingwhich sobviously ot a merecontent fsense-perceptionut an objectofthought. he hearerwillfurtherealize hat looked ndperceivedin order o judge; for he mmediate urpose f udging ne'sper-ceivedworld s to develop t intoan intellectual,n understood,world.But nthisnomancaneverfullyucceed.One cannot xhaustsensuous ontentn thought,ullyntellectualizet andunderstandit.A sensuous esidue emains,ndremains otas a meremonumentto failure, ut as an indispensableuxiliary o eke out and com-

plementhinking.Consider owtheproblemfthoughtndits inguisticxpression,

which s perhapsn theendthesameproblem. anguage s always

eithermore rlesssensuous.t develops nus as imaginationeve-lops.Thus t precedes nd is pre-supposedythought:we developthroughpeaking o thinking.ut as in thecase ofperceptionndjudgment,herelations not ust asymmetrical.or language ur-vives modifieds the indispensable xpression f thought,ndis-pensable otmerelyor ommunication,utfor he ctual ompletionofourthought.We donot think ompletehoughtsnd then lothethem nwords n order o pass themon. Untilwe have expressedourthoughtn wordswe do not knowwhat t is, becauseuntil t

is expressedt is notcomplete.Takenext herelation etweenmerempulsendwill, heproblem

onwhichwetouchedndiscussingreedom.Willdevelops n a basisof mpulse,rrather erhaps rom germ f mpulse. implemindedthinkers ave triedto reduce n act of will to thevictory fthestrongestmongconflictingmpulses.Not quiteso simplemindedthinkers ave regarded he essenceof will as a powerof choicebetweenconflictingmpulses.But even the second explanation

215



PHILOSOPHY

ignores hefactthatthe will s a developmentf mpulse: t is nottheactof a subject oming ponthescene s a deus xmachinand

choosing xternallywhich mpulse t will sanction,which t willrepress. he impulsiveelfofconflictingesires s theundevelopedwill,and it is the will which xplains he impulsiveelf,notviceversa.Butagaintherelationsnotquite symmetrical.hedevelop-ment f the mpulsiveelf ntowill s never omplete,nd as senseon thecognitiveidesurvives o complementnderstanding,o theimpulsive elfpersistsndispensablyo complementnd subservethewill.No doubt hepersistingmpulsiveelf smodified;t differsbeforendafter hewill merges,ustas thehalf rticulateanguage

inwhichwe struggleowards hought iffersrom hemotuste nwhichwesuccessfullyomplete urthought. ut itpersistss a selfof mpulse.

Thatperhapsetssome ightnonthesocialandpolitical uzzleswhich ex us into onflictoth heoreticalndpractical.f npursuitof the dealyoutry o force evelopmento thehigherevelquiteintransigently,ou defeatyourownends.You reacha lower ndnot a higher nity f ndividuals, lowerunitywhich s notevenlikethat ofa

healthy iological rganism.ou

getnota harmless

communityf ntsorbees buttheperverted,seudo-organicictatorState. You mustnot trywholly o sweepaway the lower evels,because in humanaffairsheynecessarilyurvive o complementand subserve hehigher. o devote all one'senergiesnd loyaltiesto theservice fthe State s a glitteringdealbesidewhich rivateenterprise,he profitmotive, ndeedmostothermotives, an bemadetolook ever omean ndugly.Butthetruthwhich hat dealembodies s a half-truthnly. f in theory r practiceyoupursue

thishalf-truths the wholetruth,t willdevelop ntodisastrousperversion.n theoryyouwillfind hatby cutting ut the lesserinterveningoyaltiesyou have cruelly aricatured umannature.In practice,fyousucceed npersuading sufficientumber fyourfellowso actwithyou,youwillfind ourself slave nthepseudo-organic tate-or, whichmaybe morallyworse oryou, tstyrant.

If,ontheother and,you ntransigentlyursue heopposite alf-truth, ouwillmeetthe samedisaster yanother oute.The ironicparadoxofour time s thecontrast etween heactualSovietState

and theMarxian deal of a classless ociety n whichgovernmenthaswitheredway. t isscarcelyrediblehat rational eing houldnow uppose heformero be a stageon thewayto the atter, utto see howtheparadoxoccurssnothard.TheMarxianmillenniumis a reductiod absurdumf iberalism.t assumes hesupreme alueof the singular ndividual s such, conceivingiberty n purelynegative erms s freedomromnterference.t ignores helessonof all historyhattheprimary roblem fhuman ife s the dis-

216



THE ORGANIC STATE

tributionfpowerand not ofwealth, nd regards overnmentsa temporaryeviceto be discardedwhenwealthhasbeenequalized

throughhe o-called ictatorshipf heproletariate.ut t s iterallypreposterouso alloweconomicso dominate olitics. he economiclevel is lowerthanthepolitical, venthough heir elations notcompletelysymmetrical.he attempt y a communityo discardgovernments as fatalas the abandonmentf self-controly anindividual.Power, f the problem f distributingt is neglected,inevitably oncentratesn thewrongplace. That is the origin ftyranny,nd tyranny,ven if you label it "dictatorshipf theproletariate,"s not a step towardsa societywithout lass or

government;wo factswhich latovery learly ndsimply emon-stratedntheRepublic.

Thus equal ruinthreatenswhether he problem fdistributingpowerbe solvedbrutallynd crudely y Stateworship r shirkedby upholding he equal rights f all singularndividuals s such.Yet, thoughhierarchye the solutionwhichhuman nature tselfdemands, heclaimofthelesser oyalties,t mustbe admitted,sparticularlyrgentn themodernworld.Ofcourse t is clearthatthese esser

oyaltiesnd

interests-private roperty,amilyon-

cerns,ndso on-may most villy onflict ith oyalty otheState.It is clear, oo,as Plato felt o strongly,hatthedirect ervice ftheStatemaygive mana blessednegative reedomromhepettycrampingtrifesnd jealousiesofthe ower nd narrowerevelsofassociation;very oodpublic ervant asprobablyt some ime eltthat.But evenso the service f the State s nota perfectreedomwhich an standalone,howeveroyally nd intelligentlyenper-formt. The lesser oyaltiesmayconflict ith hegreater,utthey

have theirownpeculiarvalueswhich, s Aristotle etorted ponPlato, cannotbe absorbedwithout esidue n thegreaterwithouta grossviolation fhumannature.The lower evelsofassociationaffordmore atitudeformerearbitraryhoice,but without hesurvival rom lower evelof a primafacie rrelevantlement fchoice, ndevencaprice,hemore ealfreedomf elf-determinationwill nevitablyurnnto tsopposite.Withoutnunderlyingalanceof ctually perantonflictingnterestsovernmentecomesyranny.

I think here s nothingynical n thisview.The lesser oyaltiesarenotpurelyelfish,ecause n thedecent itizen hey remodified;justas impulse omplementingndsubservinghedevelopedwill smodifiednddiffersrom aw mpulse.

If we extend hepoliticalproblem rom henation-stateo theworld-andthere eems o benogoodreasonwhy heorganicheorymust ssumethenation-stateo be in principleheupper imit fpolitical ssociation-the ameholds rue.Thata world tatecannotbecreated s a device eemsnow o havebecome ufficientlybvious.

217



PH ILOSOPHY

If it evercomes to be, it will springfrom universalwill as arealization fman'snaturefuller hanthenation-state,nd it will

thenclaima higheroyalty hanthenation-state. ut it willnotabolishall lesser oyalties.Conceive t as annihilatingatriotism,and it becomes as impracticables Plato's ideal State aftertheabolition f thefamily otmerely ecause oyalty o a nation-statewouldbe a necessarytageon thewayto loyalty o a world-state,butbecausewithout omesurvivingalanceofactually onflictingnationalnterests world-state ouldhavenostability.

I have donelittlemorethanrepeata fewold arguments hichseemto menowadays oooften orgottenrmisrepresented.hope

at least to have removed ny excuseforbelieving hatif a manholds this sort of doctrinehe mustnecessarily e a reactionarydesiringhereturn fmankindo closedtribal ociety, r a servileworshipperfa Prussian tate,orindeed nysortofState dolator.If theStatebe organicnthemodifiedense havegiven heterm-I amnot nfactparticularlynamouredftheword-it followshatthe State is muchmorethana device createdby an aggregate findividuals;but it does not follow hatany actual shapeof it isfinal, orthat

deallyt is a closed

society.ven less does it follow

thattheState,which s concerned ith hepracticalife, an claimany considerableegree fcontrol verthenon-practicalctivitiesof its citizens.But the functionf the artist nd the thinkernrelationo theStateraisesproblems hich,hougholuble, believe,alongthe same ines, rebeyond hescopeof this rticle.

218

Organic State

Documents

Transcript of Organic State