Twenty Articles From
The Newspaper:
The Threefold Social Order
What Socialists Do Not See
It
appears that many people are kept
from the idea of a threefold social order by the fear that it entails
sundering things that in reality must work together as an undivided
unity within society. Now it is true that a person engaged in economic
activity is brought thereby into relationships with his fellow men that
involve laws. It is also true that one's spiritual life is dependent
on these legal relationships, and is also conditioned by one's economic
position. In the human being, these three functions are united; in the
course of life, one becomes involved in all three.
Is this,
however, a reason why these three life-functions should be governed
from a single center? Does it necessitate all three being governed
according to the same principles? In the human being and in his activities,
many currents run together that have flowed from a great variety of
sources. We are dependent on the qualities inherited from our fore-fathers.
We think and act according to what our education has made of us, education
we received from persons to whom we are not related. How strange it
would be if anyone tried to assert that our unity were destroyed because
we are influenced from different quarters by heredity and education.
Should it not be said, rather, that we remain incomplete if heredity
and education work from a single source to shape our lives?
That such
things from various sources must converge within us in order (through
this very variety) to satisfy the many requirements of our nature —
people can understand this, for to not understand it would
be absurd. However, they will not see that the development of spiritual
abilities, the regulation of legal affairs and the shaping of economic
life afford us our proper place within the social order only when each
is governed from its separate center and from its special viewpoint.
An economy that governs the rights of human beings, and educates them
according to its own interests, reduces the person to a mere cog in
the economic machinery. It stunts the human spirit, which can develop
freely only when it unfolds according to its own innate im-pulses. It
stunts, too, those relations with our fellows that stem from the feelings,
and refuse to be influenced by economic considerations — relations
that are striving rather to be governed in accordance with the equality
of all regarding what is purely human.
When the political sphere or the sphere of rights controls the development
of our individual abilities, it weighs on this development like a crushing
burden. For the interests that arise out of these spheres must naturally
produce a tendency to develop such abilities according to the government's
needs and not according to their own proper nature, however good may
be the original intentions to allow for individual characteristics.
Such a legal or political sphere also imposes an alien character upon
economic matters. Those subject to this kind of political system become
through constant tutelage spiritually cramped and economically hampered
in the pursuit of interests inappropriate to their own nature.
A spiritual
life that attempted to determine legal relations on its own terms would
inevitably be led from the in-equality of human abilities to inequality
in the law. It would be false to its own nature if it were to allow
itself to be determined by economic interests. Under such a spiritual
culture, people would never come to a true consciousness of what, in
reality, the spirit may be for human life, for they would watch the
spirit degrade itself through injustice and falsify itself through economic
aims.
What has
brought humanity to the present state of affairs in the civilized world
is that during the last few centuries these three spheres have in many
respects grown together into a single, unified state. And the cause
of the present unrest is that an enormous number of people are struggling
(while unconscious of the real nature of their striving) toward a delimitation
of these three spheres of life into separate systems of the social organism,
so that the spiritual-cultural life may be free to shape itself
according to its own spiritual impulses; that the sphere of rights may
be built up democratically through the interaction (direct or representational)
of people on equal terms; and that the economic life may extend solely
to the production, circulation and consumption of commodities.
Starting
from any number of standpoints one can come to see the necessity of
a threefold organization of society. One of these standpoints is an
understanding of present-day human nature. From the standpoint of some
particular social theory or party dogma, it may appear very unscientific
or impractical to say that when arranging institutions for communal
life, one should consult psychology to learn (so far as it can tell
us) what is suited to human nature. Yet it would be a great misfortune
if everyone who tried to give this “social psychology” its
due in the shaping of social life were to be silenced. There are colorblind
people who see the world as gray on gray; so, too, there are social
reformers and social revolutionaries blind to psychology who would like
to mold the social organism into an economic syndicate in which people
would live and move like mechanical beings. These agitators have no
idea of their blindness. They know only that there has always existed
a legal and a spiritual life beside the economic life; and they imagine
that if they fashion the economic life after their own ideas, all the
rest will come “of itself.” It will not come; it will come
to ruin. Thus it is very hard to arrive at any understanding with those
blind to psychology; and thus it is, unfortunately, also necessary to
take up against them — a battle begun not by those who can see,
but by those who are blind.
|