{"id":3159,"date":"2013-07-13T01:46:22","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:46:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=3159"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:46:22","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:46:22","slug":"18-the-problem-of-uniformity-and-liberty-vol-the-ideal-of-human-unity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/02-other-editions\/the-ideal-of-human-unity\/18-the-problem-of-uniformity-and-liberty-vol-the-ideal-of-human-unity","title":{"rendered":"-18_The Problem of Uniformity and Liberty.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\n\n
\n

\nCHAPTER XVI <\/b><\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nTHE PROBLEM OF UNIFORMITY
\nAND LIBERTY<\/b><\/font> <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nT<\/font>HE<\/font> question with which we started has reached some
\nkind of answer. After sounding as thoroughly as our lights permit, the possibility of a political and administrative unification of
\nmankind by political and economic motives and through purely
\npolitical and administrative means, it has been concluded that it
\nis not only possible, but that the thoughts and tendencies of mankind and the result of current events and existing forces and necessities have turned decisively in this direction. This is one of
\nthe dominant drifts which the World-Nature has thrown up in
\nthe flow of human development and it is the logical consequence
\nof the past history of mankind and of our present circumstances.
\nAt the same time nothing justifies us in predicting its painless
\nor rapid development or even its sure and eventual success. We
\nhave seen some of the difficulties in the way; we have seen also
\nwhat are the lines on which it may practically proceed to the
\novercoming of those difficulties. We have concluded that the one
\nline it is not likely to take is the ideal, that which justice and the
\nhighest expediency and the best thought of mankind demands,
\nthat which would ensure it the greatest possibility of an enduring success. It is not likely to take perfectly until a probably
\nmuch later period of our collective evolution the form of a federation of free and equal nations or adopt as its motive a perfect
\nharmony between the contending principles of nationalism and internationalism. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nAnd now <\/b> we have to consider the second aspect of the<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage-147 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nproblem, its effect on the springs of human life and progress
\nThe political and administrative unification of mankind is not
\nonly possible but foreshadowed by our present evolution; the
\ncollective national egoism which resists it may he overborne by
\nan increasing flood of the present unifying tendency to which
\nthe anguish of the European war gave a body and an articulate
\nvoice. But the question remains whether\u2014not in its first loose
\nformation, but as it develops and becomes more complete and
\neven vigorous\u2014a strictly unified order will not necessarily involve
\na considerable overriding of the liberties of mankind, individual
\nand collective, and an oppressive mechanism by which the free
\ndevelopment of the soul life of humanity will be for some time
\nat least seriously hindered or restricted or in danger of an excessive repression. We have seen that a period of loose formation
\nis in such developments usually followed by a period of restriction and constriction in which a more rigid unification will be
\nattempted so that firm moulds may be given to the new unity.
\nAnd this has meant in past unifications and is likely to mean
\nhere also a suppression of that principle of liberty in human life
\nwhich is the most precious gain of humanity’s past spiritual,
\npolitical and social struggles. The circle of progression is likely
\nto work itself out again on this new line of advance. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nSuch a development would be not only probable, but inevitable if the unification of mankind proceeded in accordance
\nwith the Germanic gospel of the increasing domination of the
\nworld by the one fit empire, nation, race. <\/b> It would be equally
\ninevitable if the means employed by Destiny were the domination of humanity by two or three great imperial nations; or it
\nthe effectuating force were a closely organised united Europe
\nwhich would, developing the scheme of a certain kind of political
\nthinkers, take in hand the rest of the world and hold the darker-coloured races of mankind in tutelage for an indefinite period. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nThe ostensible object and justification of such a tutelage
\nwould be to civilise, that is to say, to Europeanise the less developed races. Practically, we know that it would mean then
\nexploitation, since in the course of human nature the benevolent <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage-148 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nbut forceful guardian would feel himself justified in making the best profit out of his advantageous situation, always of
\ncourse in the interest at once of his own development and that
\nof the world in general. The regime would rest upon superior
\nforce for its maintenance and oppose itself to the velleities of
\nfreedom in the governed on the ground either that they were
\nunfit or that the aspiration was immature, two arguments that may well remain valid forever, since they can never be refuted
\nto the satisfaction of those who advance them. At first this regime
\nmight be so worked as to preserve the principle of individual
\nliberty for the governing races while enforcing a beneficial subjection upon the ruled; but that could not endure. The experience of the past teaches us that the habit of preferring the principle of authority to the principle of liberty is engendered in an
\nimperial people, reacts upon it at home and leads it first insensibly and then by change of thought and the development of a
\nfate in circumstances to the sacrifice of its own inner freedom.
\nThere could be only two outlets to such a situation, either the
\ngrowth of the principle of liberty among the peoples still subject or, let us say, administered by others for their own benefits,
\nor else its general decline in the world. Either the higher state
\nmust envelop from above or the lower from below; they cannot
\nsubsist perpetually together in the same human economy. But
\nnine times out of ten, in the absence of circumstances ending
\nthe connection, it is the unhappier possibility that conquers.* <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nAll these means of unification would proceed practically
\nby the use of force and compulsion and any deliberately planned,
\nprolonged and extended use of restrictive means tends to discourage the respect for the principle of liberty in those who
\napply the compulsion as well as the fact of liberty in those to
\nwhom it is applied. It favours the growth of the opposite principle or dominating authority whose whole tendency is to introduce <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n*These considerations have now become irrelevant to the actual condition
\nof things. Asia is now for the most part free or in the process of liberation
\nthe idea of a dominant West or a dominant Europe has no longer any force has indeed receded out of men’s minds and practically out of
\nexistence.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage-149 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nrigidity, uniformity, a mechanised and therefore eventually an
\nunprogressive system of life. This is a psychological relation of
\ncause and effect whose working cannot he avoided except by
\ntaking care to found all use of authority on the widest possible
\nbasis of free consent. But by their very nature and origin the
\nregimes of unification thus introduced would be debarred from
\nthe free employment of this corrective; for they would have to
\nproceed by compulsion of what might be very largely a reluctant
\nmaterial and the imposing of their will for the elimination of all
\nresisting forces and tendencies. They would be compelled to
\nrepress, diminish, perhaps even abolish all forms of liberty which
\ntheir experience found to be used for fostering the spirit of revolt
\nor of resistance; that is to say all those larger liberties of free action and free self-expression which make up the best, the most
\nvigorous, the most stimulating part of human freedom. They
\nwould be obliged to abolish first, by violence and then by legal
\nsuppression and repression, all the elements of what we now
\ncall national freedom; in the process individual liberty would
\nbe destroyed both in the parts of humanity coerced and by inevitable reaction and contagion in the imperial nation or nations.
\nRelapse in this direction is always easy, because the assertion of
\nhis human dignity and freedom is a virtue man has only acquired
\nby long evolution and painful endeavour; to respect the freedom
\nof others he is still less naturally prone, though without it his
\nown liberty can never be really secure; but to oppress and dominate where he can\u2014often, be it noted, with excellent motives,\u2014
\nand otherwise to be half dupe and half serf of those who can
\ndominate, are his inborn animal propensities. Therefore in fact
\nall unnecessary restriction of the few common liberties roan has
\nbeen able to organise for himself becomes a step backward whatever immediate gain it may bring; and every organisation or oppression or repression beyond what the imperfect conditions o
\nhuman nature and society render inevitable, becomes, no matter
\n<\/i>where or by whom it is practised, a blow to the progress or whole race. <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nIf, on the other hand, the formal unification of the race <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage-150 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\neffectuated by a combination of free nations and empires and if
\nthese empires strive to become psychological realities and therefore free organisms, or if by that time the race has advanced so
\nfar that the principle of free national or cultural grouping within
\na unified mankind can be adopted, then the danger of retrogression will be greatly diminished. Still, it will exist. For, as
\nwe have seen, the principle of order, of uniformity is the natural tendency of a period of unification. The principle of liberty
\noffers a natural obstacle to the growth of uniformity and, although perfectly reconcilable with a true order and easily coexistent with an order already established into which it has been
\nfitted is not so easily reconciled as a matter of practice with a
\nnew order which demands from it new sacrifices for which it is
\nnot yet psychologically prepared. This in itself need not matter,
\nfor all movement forward implies a certain amount of friction
\nand difficulty of adjustment; and if in the process liberty suffered
\na few shocks on one side and order a few shocks on the other,
\nthey would still shake down easily enough into a new adjustment
\nafter a certain amount of experience. Unfortunately, it is the
\nnature of every self-asserting tendency or principle in the hour
\nof its growth, when it finds circumstances favourable, to over-assert itself and exaggerate its claim, to carry its impulses to a
\none-sided fruition, to affirm its despotic rule and to depress
\nand even to trample upon other tendencies and principles and
\nespecially on those which it instinctively feels to be the farthest
\nremoved from its own nature. And if it finds a resistance in these
\nopposite powers, then its impulse of self-assertion becomes angry,
\nviolent, tyrannical; instead of the friction of adjustment we have
\na inimical struggle stumbling through violent vicissitudes, action and reaction, evolution and revolution till one side or the
\nother prevails in the conflict. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nThis is what has happened in the past development of mankind  the struggle of order and uniformity against liberty has been
\nthe dominant fact of all great human formations and developments,  religious, social, political. There is as yet no apparent
\nground for predicting a more reasonable principle of development <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage-151 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nin the near future. Man seems indeed to be becoming more generally a reasoning animal than in any known past period of hi’
\nhistory, but he has not by that become, except in one or two
\ndirections, much more of a reasonable mind and a harmonious
\nspirit; for he still uses his reason much more commonly to justify
\nstrife and mutual contradiction than to arrive at a wise agreement And always
\nhis mind and reason are very much at the mercy of his vital desires and passions. Therefore we must suppose that ever
\nunder the best circumstances the old method of development will
\nassert itself and the old struggle be renewed in the attempt at"
\nhuman unification. The principle of authority and order will
\nattempt a mechanical organisation; the principle of liberty will
\nresist and claim a more flexible, free and spacious system. The
\ntwo ancient enemies will struggle for the control of the human
\nunity as they did in the past for the control of the growing form of
\nthe nation. In the process, the circumstances being favourable to
\nthe narrower power, both national and individual liberty are likely
\nto go to the wall,\u2014happy if they are not set against it before a
\nfiring platoon of laws and restrictions to receive a military quietus. <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nThis might not happen if within the nations themselves
\nthe spirit of individual liberty still flourished in its old vigour; for that would then demand, both from an innate sympathy and
\nfor its own sake, respect for the liberties of all the constituent
\nnations. But, as far as all present appearances go to show, we are
\nentering into a period in which the ideal of individual liberty is
\ndestined to an entire eclipse under the shadow of the State idea,
\nif not to a sort of temporary death or at least of long stupor, coma
\nand hibernation. The constriction and mechanisation of the
\nunifying process is likely to coincide with a simultaneous process of constriction and mechanisation within each constituting
\nunit. Where then in this double process will the spirit of liberty
\nfind its safeguard or its alimentation? The old practical formulations of freedom would disappear in the double process and the
\nonly hope of healthy progress would lie in a new formulation of
\nliberty produced by a new powerful movement spiritual or intellectual of the
\nhuman mind which will reconcile individual  liberty with the collective
\nideal of a communal life and the liberty <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage-152 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nof the group-unit with the new-born necessity of a more united
\nlife for the human race. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nMeanwhile we have to consider how far it is either likely
\nor possible to carry the principle of unification in those more
\noutward and mechanical aspects which the external, that is to
\nsay, political and administrative method is prone to favour, and how far they will in their more extreme formulations favour or
\nretard the true progress of the race to its perfection. We have to
\nconsider how far the principle of nationality itself is likely to
\nbe affected, whether there is any chance of its entire dissolution
\nor, if it is preserved, what place the subordinate nation-unit will
\ntake in the new united life. This involves the question of control, the idea of the "Parliament of Man" and other ideas of political organisation as applied to this new portentous problem in
\nthe science of collective living. Thirdly, there is the question of
\nuniformity and how far uniformity is either healthful to the race
\nor necessary to unity. It is evident that we enter here upon problems which we shall have to treat in a much more abstract fashion and with much less sense of actuality than those we have till
\nnow been handling. For all this is in the dark future and all the
\nlight we can have is from past experience and the general principles of life and nature and sociology; the present gives us only
\na dim light on the solution which plunges a little further on in
\nTime into a shadowy darkness full of incalculable possibilities.
\nWe can foresee nothing; we can only speculate and lay down
\nprinciples. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nWe see that there are always two extreme possibilities with
\na number of more or less probable compromises. The nation is
\nat present the firm group-unit of the human aggregation to which
\nall other units tend to subordinate themselves; even the imperial
\nhas hitherto been only a development of the national; and empires have existed in recent times, not consciously for the sake of
\nWider aggregation as did the imperial Roman world, but to serve
\ne instinct of domination and expansion, the land hunger, money hunger, commodity hunger, the vital, intellectual, cultural
\naggressiveness of powerful and prosperous nations. This, however, does not secure the nation-unit from eventual dissolution <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage-153 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nin a larger principle of aggregation. Group-units there must
\nalways be in any human unity, even the most entire, intolerant
\nand uniform, for that is the very principle not only of human
\nnature, but of life and of every aggregation; we strike here on
\na fundamental law of universal existence, on the fundamental
\nmathematics and physics of creation. But it does not follow that
\nthe nation need persist as the group-unit. It may disappear al
\ntogether; even now the rejection of the nation-idea has begun
\nthe opposite idea of the sans-patrie,<\/i> the citizen of the world, has
\nbeen born and was a growing force before the war; and though temporarily
\noverborne, silenced and discouraged, it is by no
\nmeans slain, but is likely to revive with an increased violence
\nhereafter. On the other hand the nation-idea may persist in full
\nvitality or may assert in the event after whatever struggle and
\napparent decline, its life, its freedom, its vigorous particularism
\nwithin the larger unity. Finally, it may persist, but with a reduced and subjected vitality, or even without real vitality or any
\nliving spirit of particularism or separatism, as a convenience, an
\nadministrative rather than a psychological fact like a French
\ndepartment or an English county. But still it may preserve just
\nsufficient mechanical distinctness to form a starting-point for
\nthat subsequent dissolution of human unity which will come
\nabout inevitably if the unification is more mechanical than real,
\nif, that is to say, it continues to be governed by the political and
\nadministrative motive, supported by the experience of economic
\nand social or merely cultural ease, convenience and facts to
\nserve as a material basis for the spiritual oneness of mankind. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nSo also with the ideal of uniformity; for with many minds,
\nespecially those of a rigid, mechanical cast, those in which
\nlogic and intellectuality are stronger than the imagination and
\nthe free vital instinct or those which are easily seduced by the
\nbeauty of an idea and prone to forget its imitations, uniformity
\nis an ideal, even sometimes the highest of which they can think.
\nThe uniformity of mankind is not an impossible eventuality’
\neven though impracticable in the present circumstances and in
\ncertain directions hardly conceivable except in a far distant <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage-154 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nfuture. For certainly there is or has been an immense drive towards uniformity of life-habits, uniformity of knowledge, uniformity political, social, economical, educational, and all this,
\nif followed out to its final conclusion, will lead naturally to
\nuniformity of culture. If that were realised the one barrier left
\nagainst a dead level of complete uniformity would be the difference of language; for language creates and determines thought
\neven while it is created and determined by it, and so long as there
\nis difference of language there will always be a certain amount of
\nfree variation of thought, of knowledge and of culture. But it is
\neasily conceivable that the general uniformity of culture and
\nintimate association of life will give irresistible force to the need
\nalready felt of a universal language, and a universal language
\nonce created or once adopted may end by killing out the regional
\nlanguages as Latin killed out the languages of Gaul, Spain and
\nItaly or as English has killed out Cornish, Gaelic, Erse and has
\nbeen encroaching on the Welsh tongue. On the other hand,
\nthere is a revival nowadays, due to the growing subjectivism of
\nthe human mind, of the principle of free variation and refusal
\nof uniformity. If this tendency triumphs, the unification of the
\nrace will have so to organise itself as to respect the free culture,
\nthought, life of its constituent units. But there is also the third
\npossibility of a dominant uniformity which will allow or even
\nencourage such minor variations as do not threaten the foundations of its rule. And here again the variations may be within
\ntheir limits vital, forceful, to a certain extent particularist though
\nnot separatist, or they may be quite minor tones and shades,
\nyet sufficient to form a starting point for the dissolution of uniformity into a new cycle of various progress. <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nSo again with the governing organisation of the human
\nrace. It may be a rigid regimentation under a central authority
\nsuch as certain socialistic schemes envisage for the nation, a regime suppressing all individual and regional liberty in the
\ninterests of a close and uniform organisation of human training,
\nGnomic life, social habits, morals, knowledge, religion even, every department of human activity. Such a development may <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage-155 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nseem impossible, as it would be indeed impracticable in the near
\nfuture, because of the immense masses it would have to embrace
\nthe difficulties it would have to surmount, the many problems
\nthat would have to be solved before it could become possible.
\nBut this idea of impossibility leaves out of consideration two
\nimportant factors, the growth of science with its increasingly easy
\nmanipulation of huge masses\u2014witness the present war\u2014and of
\nlarge scale problems and the rapid march of Socialism.* Supposing the triumph of the socialistic idea, or of its practice, in whatever disguise\u2014in all the continents\u2014it might naturally lead to an
\ninternational socialisation which would be rendered possible by
\nthe growth of science and scientific organisation and by the annihilation of space difficulties and numerical difficulties. On the
\nother hand it is possible, that after a cycle of violent struggle
\nbetween the ideal of regimentation and the ideal of liberty the
\nsocialistic period of mankind might prove comparatively of
\nbrief duration like that of monarchical absolutism in Europe and
\nmight be followed by another more inspired by the principles
\nof philosophic Anarchism, that is to say, of unity based upon the
\ncompletest individual freedom and freedom also of natural
\nunforced grouping. A compromise might also be reached, a dominant regimentation with a subordinate freedom more or less
\nvital, but even if less vital, yet a starting point for the dissolution
\nof the regime when humanity begins to feel that regimentation
\nis not its ultimate destiny and that a fresh cycle of search and
\nexperiment has become again indispensable to its future. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nIt is impossible here to consider these large questions with
\nany thoroughness. To throw out certain ideas which may guide
\nus in our approach to the problem of unification is all that we
\ncan attempt. The problem is vast and obscure and even a ray or
\nlight upon it here and there may help to diminish its difficulty
\nand darkness. <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n* Even such apparent reactions as the now defeated Fascist regime in
\nItaly , merely prepare or embody new possibilities of the principle of State
\ncontrol  and  direction which is the essence of Socialism. <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage-156<\/font><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

CHAPTER XVI   THE PROBLEM OF UNIFORMITY AND LIBERTY   THE question with which we started has reached some kind of answer. After sounding as…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[63],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3159","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-the-ideal-of-human-unity","wpcat-63-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3159","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3159"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3159\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3159"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3159"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3159"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}