THE
SCIENCE OF SPIRIT AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
Geisteswissenschaft Und Soziale Frage. (The
Science of Spirit and the Social Question. Essay written in 1905
and published in Lucifer-Gnosis, Berlin, Germany)
In
looking at the world at the present time with open eyes we are
constantly confronted with what is called the social question.
Those who take life seriously have in some way to consider what
is involved in this question. And it must appear as a matter of
course that a way of thinking that has undertaken to
promote the highest ideals of humanity should somehow come to
terms with the demands made in social life. The way of thinking
practiced by the science of spirit sets out to do just this for
the present time. It is therefore only natural if questions
arise about the relationship of the science of spirit to the
social question.
Now
it may appear at first as if the science of the spirit has
nothing in particular to say about this. What
characterizes it more than anything else is the deepening
of the soul life and the awakening of the ability to see into
the spiritual world. Even those who have had only a passing
acquaintance with the ideas promoted by speakers and
writers whose work is based on the science of spirit are
able by means of unbiased observation to give recognition to
this striving. It is, however, more difficult to see that this
striving has practical significance at the present time.
And in particular it is not easy to see its connection
with the social question. Someone may well ask how such a
teaching can improve our bad social conditions, a teaching
which is concerned with reincarnation, with
“karma,” with “the super-sensible
world,” with “the origin of man” and so on.
Such a way of thinking appears to be divorced from all reality,
whereas in fact it is now an imperative necessity for
everyone to take his whole thinking in hand in order to
do justice to the tasks which the reality of earthly life
places before us.
We
shall now take two of the many views concerning the science of
spirit which we inevitably come across today. The one is, that
it is seen as the expression of uncontrolled fantasy. It is
only natural for such a viewpoint to exist. And least of all
should it be inconceivable to someone striving according to the
method of the science of spirit. Every conversation that
takes place in the presence of such a person, everything that
goes on around him that brings happiness and joy to the human
being, all this can teach him that he makes use of a language
which for many is bound to be quite ludicrous. He must of
course add to this understanding of his surroundings the
absolute certainty that he is on the right path. Otherwise he
would hardly be able to hold his own when he becomes aware of
the clash between his ideas and those of others who belong to
the educated and thinking part of humanity. If he has the
necessary assurance, if he knows the truth and weight of
his views, he can say: I know quite well that at the present
time I can be regarded as an oddity and I can see why this is,
but the truth is sure to prevail even when it is ridiculed and
mocked, and the effect it has does not depend upon the views
which people have about it, but upon its own firm
foundations.
The
other view affecting the science of spirit is that
although its thoughts may be beautiful and satisfying,
these really apply only to the inner life of the soul and
cannot be of any value for the struggles of daily life. Even
those who turn to this substance of the science of spirit to
satisfy their spiritual needs can all too easily be tempted to
say: This world of ideas cannot tell us anything about how to
deal with social needs and material needs. — But this
opinion is based upon a complete misjudgment of the real facts
of life and in particular upon the misunderstanding about the
fruits of the way that the science of spirit looks at
things.
Practically the only question that is asked is: What does the
science of spirit teach? How can what it teaches be proved? And
then what people seek to get out of it is found in the feeling
of satisfaction which is given by the teachings. Nothing
Could be more natural. For we have first to acquire a feeling
for the truth of statements that we meet. But what we really
have to seek, the real fruit of the science of spirit
cannot be sought in this. For this manifests itself only when
those who are inclined toward the science of spirit tackle
tasks in practical life. It depends on whether the science of
spirit helps them to take up these tasks judiciously and with
understanding to seek ways and means of solving them. If we
want to work effectively in life we have first to understand
life. Here we come to the heart of the matter. As long as we
only ask: What does the science of spirit teach,
we shall find its teachings too “exalted” for
practical life. But if we direct our attention to the schooling
that our thinking and feeling go through by means of these
teachings, we shall then stop raising such an objection.
However odd it may appear to a superficial view, it is
nevertheless true that the ideas of the science of spirit, even
if they may appear to be lost in the clouds, create an eye for
the proper conduct of daily life. The science of spirit
sharpens our understanding of the demands which social
life makes just because it leads the spirit into the luminous
heights of the super-sensible. However paradoxical this
may appear, it is nevertheless true.
An
example will show what is meant. An extremely interesting
book has recently appeared called As a Worker in America
(Berlin, K. Siegismund). The author is a certain
government councilor named Kolb who took it upon himself to
spend several months as an ordinary worker in America. Through
doing this he acquired a judgment about human beings and life
which apparently neither the education which led to his
councillorship had been able to give him, nor the experiences
he had had in his post and in the other positions one occupies
before becoming a councilor. Therefore for years he held a
relatively responsible position, and it was only after he
had left this and lived for a short time in a distant country
that he got to know life in such a way that he was able to
write the following noteworthy sentence in his book: “How
often had I asked with moral indignation when I saw a healthy
man begging: Why doesn't the scoundrel work? Now I knew.
Yes, in practice things are different from what they seem to
be in theory, and even the most unpleasant aspects of political
economy can be managed quite bearably at one's
desk.” Now there is not slightest intention
here of creating a misunderstanding. The fullest possible
recognition must be given to a man who persuades himself
to leave his comfortable position in life and to undertake hard
work in a brewery and a bicycle factory. The high esteem
accorded to this deed is strongly emphasized in order to avoid
the impression that we are about to indulge in negative
criticism of him. — But to everyone who wants to
see, it is absolutely clear that all the education and
knowledge that he had gained had failed to give him the means
of judging life. Let us try to understand what is
implied in this admission: We can learn everything that makes
us capable of taking a relatively important position, and at
the same time we can be quite isolated from the life which we
are supposed to influence. — Is this not rather like
being educated at an engineering school and then, when faced
with building a bridge, not knowing anything about it? But
no: it is not quite like that. A person who has not
studied the building of bridges properly will soon have his
weaknesses made clear to him when he begins the actual work. He
will prove himself to be a bungler and will be rejected
everywhere. But a person who is insufficiently prepared in
social life will not reveal his weaknesses so quickly. Badly
built bridges collapse, and even the most prejudiced will
realize that the builder was a bungler. What is bungled in
social life only comes to light in the sufferings of those
whose lives are regulated by it. It is not as easy to have an
eye for the connection between the suffering and this kind of
bungling as it is for the relationship between the
collapse of the bridge and an incapable builder. —
“But,” someone will say, “what has all this
to do with the science of spirit? Does the scientist of spirit
really believe that his teachings would have helped
Councillor Kolb to have a better understanding of life?
What use would it have been to him to have known something
about reincarnation, karma, and all the super-sensible worlds?
No one would want to maintain that ideas about planetary
systems and higher worlds would have enabled the councilor to
avoid having to admit one day that the most unpleasant
aspects of political economy can be managed quite well at one's
desk.” The scientist of spirit can really only answer
— as Lessing did in a particular case: “I
happen to be this `no one,' and I
insist upon it.” Only this does not mean to
say that the teaching of “reincarnation,” or
knowledge about “karma” enables a person to
act in the right way in social life. That would naturally be
naive. It would of course be no good directing those destined
to be councilors to Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine instead
of sending them to Schmoller, Wagner or Brentano at the
university. — What it depends upon is this: Would a
theory of political economy originating from the scientist of
spirit be such that it could be managed well at one's desk but
would let one down in actual life? And this would not be the
case. When can a theory not hold its own in life? When
it is produced by means of a thinking that is not trained for
life. Now the teachings of the science of spirit are just as
much the real laws of life as are the theories of electricity
for a factory for electrical apparatus. In setting up such a
factory we have first to acquaint ourselves with theories about
electricity. And in order to work in life we have to know
the laws of life. The teachings of the science of spirit may
appear to be remote from life, but they are, in fact, just the
opposite. To a superficial view they appear divorced from the
world; to a true understanding they reveal life. It is not just
out of curiosity that we retire into a
“spiritual-scientific circle,” in order to get hold
of all sorts of “interesting” information
about the worlds beyond, but we train our thinking, feeling and
willing on the “eternal laws of existence” in order
to enter into life and to understand it clearly. The teachings
of the science of spirit are a roundabout way to
thinking, judging and feeling according to life. —
The movement for the science of spirit will not be rightly
orientated until this is fully realized. Right action arises
out of right thinking, and wrong action arises out of wrong
thinking or out of a lack of thinking. If we believe that
something good can be brought about in the social sphere, we
have to admit that it depends on human capacities.
Working through the ideas of the science of spirit brings about
an increase in the capacities needed for working in
social life. In this connection it is not simply a matter of
which thoughts we acquire through the science of spirit, but of
what is made of our thinking through them.
Of
course it must be admitted that within the circle of those who
have taken up the science of spirit, there is not all that much
to show so far. Nor can it be denied that just for this reason
those outside the science of spirit have every reason to doubt
what has been maintained here. But it must also not be
overlooked that the movement for the science of spirit as it is
at the moment is only at the beginning of its work. Its further
progress will consist in entering into all the practical
spheres of life. We shall then see, for instance, as far as the
“social question” is concerned that instead of
theories “which can be managed quite well at one's
desk” there will be ideas which give us insight to reach
unprejudiced judgments about life and to stimulate our
will to such action as brings welfare and blessing to our
fellow human beings. Some people would say that the case of
Kolb shows that it would be superfluous to refer to the science
of spirit. It would only be necessary that in preparing
themselves for any particular occupation people would not learn
only theories in their studies, but that they be brought into
touch with life through having a practical as well as a
theoretical training. For as soon as Kolb had a look at life,
what he learned was sufficient to change his opinions. —
No, it is not sufficient, because the lack lies deeper
than this. If someone sees that his insufficient
education only enables him to build bridges which
collapse, this does not say that he has already acquired the
ability to build bridges that do not collapse. He must first
undergo a really suitable preparatory training. Of course we
need do no more than look at social conditions, however
insufficient a theory we may have about the fundamental
laws of life, to prevent us from saying to someone who does not
work: “Why doesn't the scoundrel work?” We can
understand from the conditions why such a person does not work.
But does this mean that we have learned how conditions should
be brought about in which human beings can prosper? It is
doubtless true that all the well-intentioned people who have
thought up plans for the improvement of man's lot have
not judged as Councillor Kolb did before his journey to
America. They were surely all convinced before such an
expedition that not anyone who gets on badly can be dismissed
with the phrase, “Why doesn't the scoundrel work?”
Therefore are all their plans for reform fruitful? No, because
they often contradict one another. And so we have the right to
say that the positive plans for reform which Councillor Kolb
had after his conversion cannot have much effect. It is
an error of our times that everyone considers himself capable
of understanding life, even when he has not taken the slightest
trouble to come to grips with the fundamental laws of life and
when he has not first trained his thinking to see the real
forces at work in life. Furthermore, the science of spirit is a
training for a true judgment of life because it gets to
the roots of life. It is no use seeing that conditions bring
the human being into unfavorable situations in life, in which
he is found; we have to acquaint ourselves with the
forces by means of which favorable conditions can be
created. Our experts in political economy can do this just as
little as someone can do arithmetic who does not know his two
times table. However many rows of numbers are put before
him, merely looking at them will not help him. If reality is
placed before someone who understands nothing about the
underlying forces of social life, however penetratingly
he may be able to describe what he sees, he will not be able to
make anything of how the forces of social life interact to the
well-being or detriment of man.
A
way of looking at life that leads to the real sources of life
is necessary at the present time. And the science of spirit can
be just such a way. If all those who wish to form an opinion as
to “social needs” were to go through the teachings
about life to be found in the science of spirit, we should get
much further. — The objection that those who take up the
science of spirit only “talk” and do not
“act,” is no more valid than the one that the
opinions of the science of spirit have not yet been tested and
so could be exposed as vague theories like the political theory
of Kolb. The first objection does not mean anything because it
is naturally not possible to “act” as long as the
ways to action are barred. However much a person who has great
experience in dealing with people knows what a father
should do to bring up his children, he cannot “act”
unless the father employs him to this end. In this respect we
have to wait patiently until the “talk” of those
working according to the science of spirit has some effect on
those who have the power to “act.” And this will
happen. The other objection is just as irrelevant. And it
can be raised only by those who are unfamiliar with the real
nature of the truths put forward by the science of spirit.
Those who are familiar with them know that they do not come
into existence as things can be “tried out.” The
laws of human well-being are laid in the fundament of the human
soul just as surely as the two times table. We have only to
penetrate sufficiently deeply into this fundament of the
human soul. Of course, we can make what is written into the
soul in this way evident just as we can make evident
that twice two are four if we place four beans in two groups
next to each other. But who would maintain that the truth
“twice two are four” first has to be
“tested” with beans? The true situation is: Whoever
doubts a truth of the science of spirit has not yet
recognized it, just as only a person could doubt that
“twice two are four” who has not yet
recognized the fact. However much the two differ, because
the latter is so simple and the former so complicated the
similarity in other respects is nevertheless there.
— Naturally this cannot be realized so long as we do not
enter into the science of spirit itself. This is why it is not
possible to offer a “proof” of this fact for
someone who does not know the science of spirit. We can only
say: First get to know the science of spirit and then all this
will become clear to you.
The
important role of the science of spirit in our times will be
revealed when it has become like a leaven in the whole of our
life. As long as the way into this life is not trodden in the
full sense of the word, those working in harmony with the
science of spirit will not have advanced beyond the first
beginnings of their work. And as long as this is the case they
will no doubt also have to listen to the reproach that their
ideas are inimical to life. Yes, they are just as inimical to
life as was the railway to a life that regarded the mail coach
as the “symbol of true life.” They are just as
inimical as the future is inimical to the past.
In
what follows, particular aspects of the relationship between
“the science of spirit and the social question” are
discussed. —
There are two opposing views concerning the “social
question.” The one sees the causes of good and bad in
social life more in the human being, the other more in the
conditions in which men live. Those who represent the first
view want to encourage progress by endeavoring to increase the
spiritual and physical ability of the human being and his moral
feeling; those who tend toward the second view are above all
concerned to raise the standard of life, for they say that when
men learn to live properly, their ability and ethical feelings
will rise by themselves to a higher level. We cannot deny that
today the second view is constantly gaining ground. To stress
the first view is felt in many circles to be the expression of
a quite antiquated way of thinking. The point is made that
anyone who has to struggle with the bitterest poverty from
morning to night cannot do anything about the development of
his spiritual and moral powers. Such a person should first be
given bread before you talk to him about spiritual matters.
This last assertion in particular can easily become a reproach
to a striving like the science of spirit. And it is not the
worst people who make such reproaches today. They say, for
instance: “The genuine theosophist does not descend
willingly from the devachan and karmic spheres to the earth.
One prefers to know ten words of Sanscrit rather than be taught
what ground rent is.” This we read in an interesting
book, The Cultural Situation of Europe at the Reawakening of
Modern Occultism, by G. L. Dankmar (Leipzig, Oswald Mutze,
1905).
This is an easy enough way of putting the objection. It is
pointed out that nowadays families of eight people are herded
together into a single room so that even air and light are
insufficient, and the children have to be sent to school where
weakness and hunger cause them to break down. It is then said:
Should not those who are concerned about the progress of
the masses concentrate all their efforts on alleviating such
conditions? Instead of directing their thinking to teaching
about the higher worlds of the spirit they should direct it to
the question: How can these terrible social conditions be dealt
with? “Let Theosophy descend from its icy loneliness to
the people; let it put the ethical demand of universal
brotherhood earnestly and truly at the top of its program, and
let it act according to this without worrying about all the
consequences; let it make the word of Christ about loving one's
neighbor a social deed and it will become and remain a
precious and indispensable possession of humanity.” This
is what we read in the above-mentioned book.
Those who make such an objection against the science of spirit
mean well. In fact, we must even admit that they are right
concerning some people who have studied the teachings of the
science of spirit. Among the latter there are, without doubt,
some who are interested only in their own spiritual needs, who
only want to know something about the “higher
life,” about the destiny of the soul after death, and so
on. — And it is certainly not wrong to say that at the
present time it appears more necessary to work for the common
good and to develop the virtues of loving one's neighbor and of
human welfare than, in isolation from the world, to cultivate
any higher faculties which might be dormant in the soul. To
desire the latter above all else could mean a kind of refined
egotism where the well-being of one's own soul is placed higher
than the normally accepted human virtues. Another remark that
is heard just as frequently is that only those who are
“well off” and who therefore have “time to
spare” can take an interest in such things as the science
of spirit. And therefore we should not wish to stuff people who
have to toil from morning to night for a miserable wage with
talk about universal human unity, about “higher
life,” and similar things.
It
is only too true that in this respect quite a number of sins
are committed by those following the science of spirit. But it
is just as correct to say that life led according to the
science of spirit, rightly understood, must lead the human
being, as an individual, to the virtues of willingly offered
work, and of striving for the common good. At any rate, the
science of spirit cannot prevent anyone from being just
as good a person as the others who do not know or do not want
to know anything about the science of spirit. — But as
far as the “social question” is concerned, all this
misses the main point. Much more is necessary to penetrate to
this main point than the opponents of the science of spirit
wish to admit. We can agree without hesitation with these
opponents that much can be achieved with the means that
have been suggested by many for the improvement of man's social
condition. One party wants one thing, others something else. To
a clear-thinking person, some of the demands which such
parties make prove to be devoid of any real substance; on the
other hand, some of it certainly contains the making of
something really substantial.
Robert Owen, who lived from 1771 to 1858 and who certainly was
one of the noblest social reformers, emphasized again and
again that the human being is molded by his environment in
which he grows up, that his character is not formed by
himself, but by the conditions in which he lives. What is so
obviously right in such a statement should not be
disputed. But neither should it be treated with a disdainful
shrug of the shoulder, even if on the surface it appears to be
more or less self-evident. Rather, it should be readily
admitted that much in public life can be improved by
working according to such ideas. The science of spirit,
therefore, will never prevent anyone from doing anything for
human progress which sets out to produce a better lot for the
oppressed and suffering classes of humanity.
The
science of spirit must go deeper. Really
effective progress cannot be achieved by such means any
longer. If we do not admit this, we have not recognized how
conditions come about in which people live. For inasmuch
as the life of man is dependent on these conditions the latter
themselves are brought about by man. Or who has arranged it
that one person is poor and another rich? Other people, of
course. But the fact that these other people have normally
lived before those who flourish or do not flourish under
the conditions, does not alter anything in this situation. The
sufferings which nature itself places upon the human
being are not directly concerned with our social
position. These sufferings have to be mitigated or even
removed by human action. If something is lacking in this
respect it is in the arrangements that human beings make for
each other. — A thorough knowledge of things teaches us
that all evils connected with social life originate in human
actions. In this respect it is not the individual human being
but the whole of humanity that is the “fashioner of
individual fortune.”
However certain this is, it is also true that by and
large no part of humanity, no caste or class, maliciously
causes the suffering of another part. All the statements that
support this are based on a lack of understanding.
Nevertheless, although this too is really a self-evident
truth, it must be mentioned. For even if such things can easily
be grasped with the understanding, in practice people still act
in a different way. Those who exploit their fellow men would
naturally not want the victims of their exploitation to
suffer. We would make considerable progress if people not only
found this self-evident, but also adapted their feelings to
it.
This is air very well, but what are we supposed to do about
such statements? Thus, without doubt, a “socially minded
person” might object. Is the exploited person
supposed to look at the exploiter with benevolent
feelings? Is it not only too understandable that the former
hates the latter and out of hate is led to his party views? It
would certainly be a bad recipe — the objection would
continue — if the oppressed were admonished to practice
human love for his oppressor, somewhat in the same sense as the
saying of the great Buddha: “Hate will not be overcome by
hate, but only by love.”
Even so, it is only the knowledge which follows from this point
that can lead us to truly “social thinking” at the
present time. And it is here that the approach of the science
of spirit begins. This of course must not cling to the surface
of our understanding, but must penetrate into the depths. It
therefore cannot remain satisfied with merely showing that
misery is created by any particular conditions, but it
has to advance to the only knowledge that is fruitful, that is,
as to how these conditions are created and continuously
created. Compared with these deeper questions, most
social theories prove to be only “vague theories”
or even mere manners of speech.
As
long as our thinking remains on the surface, we attribute quite
a wrong influence to conditions and to external things
altogether. These conditions are in fact only an
expression of an inner life. Just as the human
body can be understood only when it is known to be the
expression of a soul, the outer conditions of life can be
rightly judged only if they are seen as the creation of human
souls that embody their feelings, attitudes and thoughts in
them. The conditions in which we live are created by our fellow
human beings, and we shall never create better ones unless we
set out with other thoughts, attitudes and feelings from those
that those creators had.
Let
us consider these things in detail. A person who maintains a
home in grand style, who can travel first class on the railway,
may easily appear on the surface to be an oppressor. And a
person who wears a threadbare coat and who travels fourth class
will appear to be the oppressed. But one does not have to be an
incompassionate individual nor a reactionary in order to
understand the following clearly. Nobody is oppressed or
exploited because I wear a particular coat, but only because I
pay the man who made the coat for me too little. The poor
worker who has acquired his inferior coat for little money is,
in relation to his fellow human beings in this respect,
in exactly the same position as the rich man who had a better
coat made. Whether I am poor or rich, I exploit if I acquire
things for which insufficient payment is made. Actually today
nobody ought to call someone else an oppressor; he ought
first to look at himself. If he does this carefully he will
soon discover the “oppressor” in himself. Is the
work which you have to deliver to the well-to-do delivered
only to them at the price of bad wages? No, the person
who sits next to you and complains to you about oppression
enjoys the work of your hands on exactly the same conditions as
the well-to-do whom you have both turned against. One should
think this through and one will then find a different way of
approaching “social thinking” from the more usual
ones.
Thinking things over in this way makes it clear that the
concepts “rich” and “exploiter” must be
completely separated. It depends on individual ability or
on the ability of our forefathers, or on quite different
things, whether we are now rich or poor. The fact that we
exploit the work of others has absolutely nothing to do with
these things. At least not directly. But it is very much
connected with something else. And that is, that our social
situation and environment are built upon personal
self-interest. We have to think very clearly for otherwise
we shall arrive at a quite wrong idea of what is said. If I
acquire a coat today it appears quite natural, according to the
conditions which exist, that I acquire it as cheaply as
possible. This means: I have only myself in mind. Here,
however, we touch the point of view that governs our whole
life. Of course, it is easy to raise an objection. We can say:
Do not the socially-minded parties and personalities try to do
something about this evil? Is there not an effort to protect
“work?” Do not the working classes and their
representatives demand higher wages and shorter working hours?
It has already been said above that the present-day view can
have absolutely nothing against such demands and
measures. Nor is there any intention here of agitating for one
or the other of the existing party demands. From the present
point of view, we are not concerned with taking sides on
particular points, “for” or “against.”
This, in the first place, lies quite outside the approach of
the science of spirit.
However many improvements are introduced to protect a
particular class of workers and that would certainly
contribute much to the raising of conditions of one or
the other group of people, the actual nature of
exploitation will not be mitigated. For this depends on a
person acquiring the products of another person's work
from the point of view of self-interest. Whether I have
much or little: if I make use of what I have to satisfy my
self-interest, the other person is bound to be
exploited. Even if in maintaining this point of view I
protect his work, it may seem that I have done something, but
in fact I have not. For if I pay more for the work of the other
person he will also have to pay more for mine, providing the
one is not supposed to acquire a better position through
the deteriorating position of the other.
This can be clarified by another example. If I buy a
factory in order to earn as much as possible for myself,
I shall see that I acquire labor as cheaply as possible, etc.
Everything that happens will be done from the point of
view of self-interest. — If, on the other hand, I buy a
factory from the point of view of looking after 200 people as
well as possible, all my actions will take on a different
character. — In practice today the second case can
certainly hardly be differentiated from the first. This simply
depends on the fact that a solitary selfless person
cannot achieve much in a community which otherwise is based on
self-interest. It would be quite different, however, if work
not based on self-interest were universal.
A
“practical” thinker will naturally be of the
opinion that no one could manage to help his workers get better
wage conditions just by a “good attitude.” For we
cannot increase the return on our goods through meaning well,
and without this it is not possible to offer better conditions
for the workers. — But it is important to realize that
this objection is completely erroneous. All our interests, and
therefore all our social conditions, change when in
acquiring something we no longer have ourselves in
mind, but others. What does a person have to look to who
only looks after his own well-being? To seeing that he earns as
much as possible. How others have to work in order to
satisfy his needs cannot be his concern. He therefore
has to develop his powers in the struggle for existence.
If I establish an undertaking which is to bring in as much as
possible to myself, I do not ask how labor that works
for me is mobilized. If I do not consider myself but hold the
point of view: How does my work serve others? everything
changes. Nothing then forces me to undertake anything
prejudicial to someone else. I then place my powers not at my
own disposal, but at someone else's. The consequence of this is
a quite different unfolding of the powers and capacities of the
human being. How this changes social conditions in
practice will be discussed at the end of the essay.
—
In
a way Robert Owen can be called a genius in practical
social activity. He possessed two characteristics which may
well justify him being called this: a far-ranging eye for
measures that would serve social life, and a noble love for
human beings. We only have to consider what he achieved by
means of these two capacities in order to appreciate their
significance. He created a model industrial set-up in New
Lanark and employed his workers in such a way that they not
only had a dignified existence materially, but that they also
lived in conditions which were satisfactory from a moral point
of view. The people who gathered there were in part those who
had come down in the world and were given over to drink. Better
elements were mixed with these, and their example had an
effect. And so the best possible results imaginable were
attained. What Owen achieved there makes it impossible to place
him on the same level as other more or less fantastic
“improvers of the world” — the so-called
Utopians. He restricted himself to measures which could be put
into practice, that anyone not inclined to day-dreams
could assume would lead, within a particular limited area, to
the abolition of human suffering. And it is not being
impractical to believe that such a small area could serve as an
example, and that from it a healthy development of the human
condition in the social sphere could be stimulated.
Owen presumably thought along those lines. That is why he was
not afraid to take another step in the direction he had
already taken. In 1824 he worked toward setting up a kind of
small model state in Indiana, in North America. He acquired a
district where he wanted to found a human community based upon
freedom and equality. Everything was so arranged that
exploitation and servitude were an impossibility. Whoever
takes such a task upon himself has to bring with him the best
social virtues: a desire to make one's fellow men happy, and a
belief in the goodness of human nature. He must be convinced
that if work organized in the appropriate way appears certain
to bring blessing, the desire to work will unfold within human
nature.
Owen believed this so strongly that a lot of serious things had
to happen before he began to waver.
These serious things really did begin to happen. After much
noble effort Owen had to admit that “the
realization of such colonies must always come to grief
unless the general way of living is transformed first;”
and that it would be more valuable to influence humanity in a
theoretical way rather than by practical measures. This
social reformer was forced to this view by the fact that there
were sufficient people who disliked work, who wished to get rid
of their work on others, for strife, quarrels and finally
bankruptcy to ensue.
Owen's experience can be a lesson to all who really want to
learn. It can be a bridge for all artificially created and
thought-out measures for the salvation of humanity to a social
work which is more fruitful and which reckons with actual
reality.
Through his experience Owen was able to be completely cured of
the belief that all human misery comes about through bad
“conditions” in which people live, and that the
goodness of human nature would come to life of itself if these
conditions were improved. He was forced to the conviction that
good conditions can be maintained only if the human beings who
live in them are naturally inclined to maintain them, and when
they do this with enthusiasm.
One
might at first think that it would be necessary to give
theoretical instruction to those who are to live in such
conditions, that is, in explaining to them that the measures
are right and meet the purpose. It is not difficult for an
unbiased person to read something like this into Owen's
confession. But even so, it is only possible to achieve a
really practical result by penetrating more deeply into the
matter. We have to advance from merely a belief in the goodness
of human nature that deceived Owen, to a real knowledge of
man. — However clear people have been about how
purposeful certain measures are which can bring blessing
to humanity — in the long run all such clarity
cannot lead to the desired goal. For the human being is not
able to gain the inner impulse to work by having a clear
understanding if, on the other hand, the impulses to be found
in egotism rear their heads. This egotism happens to be part of
human nature. And this means that it stirs in the feelings of
the human being when he lives together with others and has to
work within a community. This necessarily leads to the fact
that in practice most people think the best social
conditions to be those where the individual can best
satisfy his needs. Thus under the influence of egotistical
feelings the social question comes to be formulated quite
naturally as follows: What must be done in society in order
that each person can have the returns of his work for
himself? And particularly in our own times with their
materialistic way of thinking, only a few people would base
their view on any other assumption. How often does one hear it
accepted as a matter of course that a social order based on
goodwill and feeling for one's fellow human beings is an
absurdity. Rather it is assumed that the totality of a human
community can prosper best when the individual can pocket
the “full” or greatest possible yield of his
work.
Exactly the opposite of this is taught by the science of
spirit, which is founded on a deeper knowledge of the human
being and of the world. It shows that all human misery is
simply a consequence of egotism, and that misery, poverty and
distress must necessarily arise at a particular time in the
human community if this community is based on egotism in any
way. It is naturally necessary to have deeper knowledge than
the kind to be found here and there sailing under the flag of
social science, in order to understand this. This “social
science” takes only the outer aspect of human life into
account, and not the forces which lie deeper. In fact, it is
even very difficult with the majority of modern people to
awaken even a feeling in themselves that one can speak about
such forces. They regard anyone who comes along with such
ideas as peculiar. Now in this essay it is not possible to
attempt to evolve a social theory based on these deeper-lying
forces. For this would need a much fuller work. The only thing
that can be done is to point to the true laws which govern how
people work together, and to show what reasonable social
considerations arise for someone familiar with these laws. Only
a person who builds up his view of the world on the science of
spirit can have a full understanding of the matter. And it is
to convey such a view of the world that this whole magazine
works. One cannot expect it from a single article on the
“social question.” All that this article can hope
to do is to shed some light on this question from the spiritual
point of view. After all, there will be some people who are
able to have a feeling for the Tightness of what is briefly
described here and which cannot possibly be explained in
every detail.
Now, the main social law set forth by the science of spirit,
is the following: “The well-being of a total
community of human beings working together becomes
greater the less the individual demands the products of his
achievements for himself, that is, the more of these
products he passes on to his fellow workers and the more his
own needs are not satisfied out of his own achievements, but
out of the achievements of others.” All
the conditions within a total community of people which
contradict this law must sooner or later produce misery and
distress somewhere. — This law holds good
for social life with absolute necessity and without any
exceptions, just as a natural law holds good for a particular
sphere of natural processes. But it should not be thought that
it is sufficient for this law to be held as a universal
moral law, or that it should be translated into the attitude
that everyone should work in the service of his fellow men. No,
in actual fact the law will be able to exist as it should only
if a total community of people succeeds in creating
conditions where no one ever can claim the fruits of his own
work for himself, but where, if at all possible, these go
entirely to the benefit of the community. And he in turn must
be maintained by means of the work of his fellow human beings.
The important thing is to see that working for one's fellow
human beings and aiming at a particular income are two quite
separate things.
Those who imagine that they are “practical people”
— the scientist of spirit has no illusions about this
— will only be able to smile about this
“hair-raising idealism.” But despite this, the
above law is more practical than anything which has ever been
thought out by “practical people,” or that has
actually been introduced. If we really study life we can find
that each human community that exists or has existed has two
tendencies in its social set-up. One of these corresponds
to this law, the other contradicts it. This has to be the case,
irrespective of whether people want it or not. Every community
would collapse immediately if the work of the individual did
not benefit the whole. But from times immemorial human egotism
has thwarted this law. It has sought to get as much as possible
for the individual from his own work. And it is just what has
been produced through egotism in this way that has always led
to distress, poverty and misery. This means that the aspect of
human conditions that is bound to prove impractical is the one
that is introduced by the “practical people,” that
reckons either with one's own egotism or somebody else's.
Now
of course we are not only concerned with understanding
such a law, but actual practice begins with the question: How
can the law be carried out in real life? It is clear that it
says nothing less than this: The smaller the egotism is, the
greater the human well-being. Thus in putting the law into
practice, our concern is with people who extricate themselves
from the path of egotism. This is in practice, however, quite
impossible if the well-being of the individual is measured
according to his work. Whoever works for himself
is bound gradually to succumb to egotism. Only someone
who works for others can gradually become an un-egotistical
worker.
For
this, one prerequisite is necessary. If a person works for
another he must find in this other person the reason for his
work; and if someone is supposed to work for the community he
must be able to feel the value, the being and the significance
of this community. He can do this only if the community is
something quite different from a more or less undefined
collection of individuals. It has to be permeated by a
real spirit in which each person can partake. It has to be such
that everyone says: It is right, and I want it to be
like that. The total community must have a spiritual mission;
and each individual must wish to contribute to the
fulfillment of this mission. None of the indefinite and
abstract ideas of progress which we normally read about are
able to provide the formulation of such a measure. If only
these ideas prevail, an individual will work here or a group
there without seeing that their work is of any use beyond
satisfying their own needs or perhaps the interests they happen
to have. This spirit of the total community must be alive
right down into each individual.
From earliest times good has prospered only where such a life
has been somehow permeated by a spirit common to the whole
community. An individual citizen of an old Greek city, or even
a citizen of a free city in the Middle Ages, had at least
something of a vague feeling of such a spirit. In this respect
it makes no difference that, for instance, the Greek way
of life was dependent on an army of slaves who did the work for
the “free citizens,” and who were not urged on by
the spirit of the community, but by the compulsion of their
masters. — The only thing we can learn from this example
is that human life is subject to development. Humanity has
reached a stage today where the kind of solution of the social
question practiced in ancient Greece is no longer possible.
Even the most noble Greek did not find slavery wrong, but a
human necessity. That is why, for instance, the great Plato
could put forward an ideal for the state in which the
spirit of the community finds its fulfillment in the fact
that the majority of workers are compelled to work by the few
with understanding. The task of the present day, however,
is to put people in a position where each one can do his work
for the whole community out of the impulse to be found within
his own being.
This is why no one should think of looking for a solution to
the social question applicable to all times, but of how we must
formulate our social thinking and actions in accordance
with the immediate needs of the present in which we live.
— It is not possible today for anyone to think up
something theoretical or to put it into practice so that it
could solve the social question. For he would have to have the
power to force a number of people into the conditions he has
created. There can be no doubt that had Owen had the power or
the will to force all the people of his colony to do the work
appointed them, the undertaking must have succeeded. But at the
present time, such force cannot be used. It must be possible
for each person to do what he is called upon to do according to
his ability and measure of power, out of his own accord. Just
because of this, it can never be the case that a mere point of
view can convey to people how economic conditions can best be
ordered — in the way that Owen in the above-cited
confession thought that people should be influenced “from
a theoretical point of view.” An economic theory by
itself can never be a stimulus to work against the powers of
egotism. Such an economic theory can for a while give the
masses life which on the surface, appears like idealism. But in
the long run, such a theory can help no one. Whoever injects
such a theory into a crowd of people without giving it
something really spiritual, commits a sin against the real
purpose of humanity.
The
only thing that can help is a spiritual view of the world which
can permeate the thoughts, feelings and will, in short, the
whole soul of the human being, out of what it is in itself and
out of what it is able to offer. The faith that Owen had in the
goodness of human nature is only partly right, the other part
being a gross illusion. He is right, inasmuch as a
“higher self,” that can be awakened, slumbers in
everyone. But it can only be redeemed from its slumber by a
view of the world which has the characteristics mentioned
above. If people are brought together in conditions such as
were thought out by Owen, the community will prosper in
the best possible way. But if people are brought together who
do not have such a view of the world, what is good in these
conditions will sooner or later of necessity have to become
worse. With people who do not have a view based on the spirit,
the conditions which further material well-being must also
necessarily intensify egotism and thereby produce distress,
misery and poverty. — The original meaning of the saying
is undoubtedly right: Only an individual can be helped by the
gift of bread alone; a community can only acquire its bread by
being helped to a view of the world. It is also of no use to
wish to procure bread for each individual in the
community. After a while it would inevitably come about that
many have no bread.
Knowledge of these fundamentals removes several illusions
from those who set themselves up to be bringers of happiness to
the people. For it makes work designed to improve the social
well-being a really difficult matter. And it means too that the
overall success of such work can, in certain conditions, only
be pieced together out of very small individual successes. Most
of what whole parties proclaim as remedies for social life
loses its value and proves to be vain delusion and empty talk
without sufficient knowledge of human life. No parliament, no
democracy, no agitation of the masses, nothing like this can
have any meaning for someone who looks more deeply, if it goes
against the law mentioned above. Such things can only have a
favorable effect if they conform to the intention of this
law. It is a serious illusion to believe that an elected member
of a particular parliament can contribute anything to the
salvation of humanity unless his work is carried out in
conformity with the main law of social life.
Wherever this law appears, wherever someone works according to
it as far as is possible in the position which he occupies in
the human community, good is achieved, even if in very small
measure in individual cases. And it is only by means of such
isolated examples of work which arise in this way, that
beneficial progress in the whole social sphere will come about.
— It is also true that in some cases larger communities
have a natural tendency which enables them to achieve a greater
result in this direction. There are also some particular human
communities where something of this sort is being prepared
within their natural tendencies and capacities. They will make
it possible for humanity to take a step forward in social
evolution. Such communities are known to the science of
spirit, but it cannot undertake to speak publicly about such
matters. — And there are also means of preparing larger
groups of people to take such a step forward, even within a
reasonable space of time. What anyone can do, however, is to
work in conformity with the above law in his own
particular sphere. There is no position which a person might
have in the world where this is not possible, however
insignificant or without influence it may appear to be.
The
most important thing is that each person seek out the ways to a
view of the world which is based on real knowledge of the
spirit. The spiritual approach of anthroposophy can develop
into such a view for everyone, when it evolves more and more
according to its content and inherent possibilities. By
means of it the human being comes to know that it is not by
chance that he is born in a particular place at a
particular time, but that he is placed out of necessity into
the situation in which he is by the spiritual law of cause,
karma. He can see that it is his own well-founded destiny that
has placed him into the human community in which he
lives. He can also become aware of how his abilities have not
come to him haphazardly, but that their existence is dependent
on the law of cause.
And
he can realize all this to the extent that it does not remain
just a matter of sense or reason, but gradually fills his whole
soul with inner life.
He
will come to feel that he is fulfilling a higher purpose when
he works in accordance with his place in the world, and in
accordance with his abilities. The result of realizing this
will not be a kind of shadowy idealism but a tremendous
impulse of all his powers, and in this respect he will regard
his action just as much a matter of course as in other respects
he regards eating and drinking. And furthermore, he will
realize the particular significance of the human community to
which he belongs. He will come to understand the relationships
which his human community has to other communities, and so the
individual personalities of these communities will draw
together through a unified picture of spiritual aims, a picture
of the common mission of the whole human race. And his
knowledge will be able to reach out from the human race to the
meaning of the entire earth existence. Only someone who will
have nothing to do with a view of the world tending in this
direction could be doubtful that it could have the effect
suggested here. Of course, it is true that today most people
have little inclination to go into such things. But the right
approach of the science of spirit cannot fail to attract
increasingly wider circles. To the extent that it does
this, people will do the right things to further social
progress. One cannot doubt this, just because no particular
view of the world has so far brought happiness to humanity.
According to the laws of human evolution it has never been
possible to achieve what is now gradually becoming possible: to
transmit a view of the world to every person with the prospect
of the practical result already indicated.
The
views of the world that have existed so far have been available
only to individual groups of people. But what good has been
achieved in the human race so far, stems from the various views
of the world. Only a view of the world that can inspire
everyone and can kindle inner life in everyone is in a position
to lead to a universal salvation. This the approach of the
science of spirit will always be able to do, where it really
evolves according to what is latent within it. — Of
course, we should not only look at the form which this way of
looking at life happens to have at this moment, in order to
recognize what has been said as right, it is imperative to
realize that the science of spirit has still to evolve and rise
to its lofty cultural mission.
Until today, for several reasons it has not been possible for
it to show the countenance it will have one day. One of these
reasons is that it must first gain a foothold somewhere.
It has therefore to turn to a particular group of people. And
naturally this can only be one that through the particular
nature of its development has a desire to seek a new solution
to the riddle of the world, and which can bring to such a
solution understanding and interest by means of the few people
in it who have the necessary preparatory training. Of course,
the science of spirit has for the moment to clothe its message
in a language suited to this group of people. The science of
spirit will find further means of expression to speak to
wider circles of people to the extent that conditions allow.
Only someone who insists on having fixed dogmas can believe
that the present form of the message of the science of
spirit is a lasting or even the only possible one. — Just
because the science of spirit is not concerned with remaining a
mere theory, or merely with satisfying curiosity, it has to
work slowly in this way. To its aims belong the practical
points of human progress characterized above. But it can bring
about this progress of humanity only if it creates the
necessary conditions for it. And these conditions can be
created only when one person after the other is conquered. The
world moves forward only when human beings want it to.
But in order to want it, everyone has to work in his own soul.
And this can only be achieved step by step. If this were not
the case, the science of spirit also would produce a lot of
woolly ideas and do no practical work.
|