History of American Socialisms Part 54

"Social Science is a creation of the nineteenth century. It has been developed in a regular form in the present century, as was Astronomy, for example, in the sixteenth. Men have arisen almost simultaneously in different countries, who have conceived the possibility of such a science, and set themselves to work at it.

Fourier took the lead. He began in 1798, and published his first work in 1806. Krause, in Germany, began to write in 1808. St.

Simon, in France, in 1811. Owen, in England, at a later period still. Comte, a disciple of St Simon, began in 1824, I think.

Fourier and Comte were the only minds that undertook to base Social Science on, and to deduce it from, universal laws, having their source in the infallible wisdom of the universe. Comte, after laying a broad foundation with the aid of all the known sciences; after seeking to determine the theory of each special science, and to construct a _Science of the Sciences_ by which to guide himself, abandons his scientific construction (reared in his first work--"Positive Philosophy"), when he comes to elaborate his plan of practical organization. He deduces his plan of the Social Order of the future from the historical past, and especially from the Middle Age _regime_, guided in so doing by his own personal feelings and views. His Social system is consequently a compound of historical deduction and personal sentiment. It is, I think, without practical value. His scientific demonstration of the possibility and the necessity of Social Science is of _great value_, and will secure to him unbounded respect in the future. Fourier, at the outset of his labors, conceived the necessity of discovering the laws of order and harmony in the universe--Nature's plan and theory of organization--and of deducing from them _the Science of Social Organization_. Leaving aside all secondary considerations, he set about this great work. The discovery of the laws of order and organization in creation was his great end. The deduction of a Social Order from them was an accessory work. He claims to have succeeded; and claims for his plan of social organization no value outside of its conformity to Nature's laws. "I give no theory of my own," he says in a hundred places; "I DEDUCE. If I have deduced erroneously, let others establish the true deduction."

"Social Science is a vast and complex science; it can not be discovered and const.i.tuted by the aid of empirical observation and reasoning: the _Inductive method_ can not do its work here.

The laws of order and organization in nature must be discovered, and from them the science must be deduced. In astronomy, in order to solve its higher and more abstruse problems, it is necessary to deduce from one of the great laws of Nature; namely, that of gravitation. It is more necessary still in the case of the involved problems of Social Science.

"Now the merit of Fourier consists in having seen clearly this great truth; in having sought carefully to discover Nature's laws of organization; and in having deduced from them with the greatest patience and fidelity the organization of the Social System which he has elaborated. His organization of Industry and of Education are master-pieces of deductive thought.

"If Fourier has failed, if he has not discovered the laws of natural organization, or has not deduced rightly from them, he has opened the way and pointed out the true path; he has shown _what must be done_, and furnished invaluable examples of the mode in which deduction must take place in Social organization.

He has shown how the human mind is to create a Social Science, and effect the Social Reconstruction to which this science is to lead. If he went astray, and could not follow the difficult path he indicated, he has at least clearly described the ways and modes of proceeding. Others can now easily follow in his footsteps.

"If we would compare the pioneers in Social Science to those in astronomy, I would say that Fourier is the Kepler of the new science. Possessing, like Kepler, a vast and bold genius, he has, by far-reaching intuition and close a.n.a.lytic thought, discovered some of the fundamental principles of Social Science, enough to place it on a scientific foundation, and to const.i.tute it regularly, as did Kepler in astronomy. Auguste Comte appears to me to be the Tycho Brahe of Social Science: learned and patient, but not original, not a discoverer of new laws and principles. Other great minds will be required to complete the science. It will have its Galileo, its Newton, its Laplace, and even still more all-sided minds; for the science is far more complex and abstruse than that of astronomy; it is the crowning intellectual evolution, which human genius is to effect in its scientific career.

Very truly yours, A. BRISBANE."

This endeavor by a leading Phalansterian to set us right in regard to the merits of Fourier, is generous to him, and doubtless well meant for us, but not altogether necessary. The foregoing history bears witness that we have not held Fourier responsible for the American experiments made in his name, and have not treated him with ridicule or disrespect on account of their failures. In our comments on the Sylvania a.s.sociation we said:

"It is evident enough that this was not Fourierism. Indeed the Sylvanian who wrote the account of his Phalanx, frankly admits for himself and doubtless for his a.s.sociates, that their doings had in them no semblance of Fourierism. But then the same may be said, without much modification, of all the experiments of the Fourier epoch. Fourier himself, would have utterly disowned every one of them. *** Here then arises a distinction between Fourierism as a theory propounded by Fourier, and Fourierism as a practical movement administered in this country by Brisbane.*** The value of Fourier's ideas is not determined, nor the hope of good from them foreclosed, merely by the disasters of these local experiments. And, to deal fairly all around, it must further be said, that it is not right to judge Brisbane by such experiments as that of the Sylvania a.s.sociation. Let it be remembered that, with all his enthusiasm, he gave warning from time to time, in his publications, of the deficiencies and possible failures of these hybrid ventures; and was cautious enough to keep himself and his money out of them."

We then proposed a distribution of criticism as follows: "1. Fourier, though not responsible for Brisbane's administration, _was_ responsible for tantalizing the world with a magnificent theory, without providing the means of translating it into practice. 2.

Brisbane, though not altogether responsible for the inadequate attempts of the poor Sylvanians and the rest of the rabble volunteers, must be blamed for spending all his energy in drumming and recruiting; while, to insure success, he should have given at least half his time to drilling the soldiers and leading them in actual battle. 3. The rank and file as they were strictly volunteers, should have taken better care of themselves, and not been so ready to follow and even rush ahead of leaders, who were thus manifestly devoting themselves to theorizing and propagandism, without experience."

These citations show, and a full reading of the text at page 247 and afterward, will show still more clearly, that we have not been inconsiderate in our treatment of the socialistic leaders.

Mr. Brisbane concludes his letter with an a.n.a.lysis of Fourier's claims as a Philosopher. He does not affirm that Fourier's theory is right, but only that he has pointed out the right way to discover a right theory. This, if true, is certainly a valuable service. Fourier's way, according to Mr. Brisbane, was to work by deduction, instead of induction. He first discovered certain fundamental laws of the universe; how he discovered them we are not told; but probably by intuitive a.s.sumption, as nothing is said of induction or proof in connection with them; then from these laws he deduced his social theory, without recurrence to observation or experiment. This, according to Brisbane and Fourier, is the way that all future discoverers in Social Science must pursue. Is this the right way?

The leaders of modern science say that sound theories in Astronomy and in every thing else are discovered by induction, and that deduction follows after, to apply and extend the principles established by induction. Let us hear one of them:

[From the Introduction to Youmans' New Chemistry.]

"The master minds of our race, by a course of toilsome research through thousands of years, gradually established the principles of mechanical force and motion. Facts were raised into generalities, and these into still higher generalizations, until at length the genius of NEWTON seized the great principle of attraction, which controls all bodies on the earth and in the heavens. He explained the mechanism and motions of the universe by the grandest induction of the human mind.

"The mighty principle thus established, now became the first step of the deductive method. Leverrier, in the solitude of his study, reasoning downward from the universal law through planetary perturbation, proclaimed the existence, place and dimensions of a new and hitherto unknown planet in our solar system. He then called upon the astronomer to verify his deduction by the telescope. The observation was immediately made, the planet was discovered, and the immortal prediction of science was literally fulfilled. Thus induction discovers principles, while deduction applies them.

"It is not by skillful conjecture that knowledge grows, or it would have ripened thousands of years ago. It was not till men had learned to submit their cherished speculations to the merciless and consuming ordeal of verification, that the great truths of nature began to be revealed. Kepler tells us that he made and rejected nineteen hypotheses of the motion of Mars before he established the true doctrine that it moves in an ellipse.

"The ancient philosophers, disdaining nature, retired into the ideal world of pure meditation, and holding that the mind is the measure of the universe, they believed they could reason out all truths from the depths of the soul. They would not experiment: consequently they lacked the first conditions of science, observation, experiment and induction. Their mistake was perhaps natural, but it was an error that paralyzed the world. The first step of progress was impossible."

If Youmans points the right way, Fourier, instead of being the Kepler of Social Science, was evidently one of the "ancient philosophers."

We frankly avow that we are at issue with Mr. Brisbane on the main point that he makes for his master. We do not believe that cogitation without experiment is the right way to a true social theory. With us induction is first; deduction second; and verification by facts or the logic of events, always and everywhere the supreme check on both. For the sake of this principle we have been studying and bringing to light the lessons of American Socialisms. If Fourier and Brisbane are on the right track, we are on the wrong. Let science judge between us.

But Mr. Brisbane thinks that social science is exceptional in its nature, too "vast and complex" to get help from observation and experiment. All science is vast and complex, reaching out into the unfathomable; but social science seems to us exceptional, if at all, as the field that lies nearest home and most open to observation and experiment. It is not like astronomy, looking away into the inaccessible regions of the universe, but like navigation or war, commanding us at our peril to study it in the immediate presence of its facts.

Mr. Brisbane insists that Fourier's theory has not had a practical trial: and we have said the same thing before him. Yet we must now say that in another sense it has had its trial. It was brought before the world with all the advantages that the most brilliant school of modern genius could give it; and it did not win the confidence of scientific men or of capitalists, because they saw, what Mr. Brisbane now confesses for it, that it came from the closet, and not from the world of facts. This nineteenth century, which has had thrift and faith enough to lay the Atlantic cable, would have accepted and realized Fourierism, if it had been a genuine product of induction. So that the reason why it never reached the stage of practical trial was, that it failed on the previous question of its scientific legitimacy. Mr.

Brisbane himself, as a capitalist, never had confidence enough in it to risk his fortune on it. And poor as the actual experiments were, _human nature_ had a trial in them, which convinced all rational observers, that if the numbers and means had been as great as Fourier required, the failures would have been swifter and worse.

We insist that G.o.d's appointed way for man to seek the truth in all departments, and above all in Social Science, which is really the science of righteousness, is to combine and alternate thinking with experiment and practice, and constantly submit all theories, whether obtained by scientific investigation or by intuition and inspiration, to the consuming ordeal of practical verification. This is the law established by all the experience of modern science, and the law that every loyal disciple of inspiration will affirm and submit to. And according to this law, the Shakers and Rappites, whom Mr. Brisbane does not condescend to mention, are really the pioneers of modern Socialism, whose experiments deserve a great deal more study than all the speculations of the French schools. By way of offset to Mr.

Brisbane's account of the development of sociology in the nineteenth century, we here repeat our historical theory. The great facts of modern Socialism are these: From 1776, the era of our national Revolution, the Shakers have been established in this country; first at two places in New York; then at four places in Ma.s.sachusetts; at two in New Hamps.h.i.+re; two in Maine; one in Connecticut; and finally at two in Kentucky, and two in Ohio. In all these places prosperous religious Communism has been modestly and yet loudly preaching to the nation and to the world. New England and New York and the Great West have had actual Phalanxes before their eyes for nearly a century. And in all this time what has been acted on our American stage, has had England, France and Germany for its audience. The example of the Shakers has demonstrated, not merely that successful Communism is subjectively possible, but that this nation is free enough to let it grow. Who can doubt that this demonstration was known and watched in Germany from the beginning; and that it helped the successive experiments and emigrations of the Rappites, the Zoarites and the Ebenezers? These experiments, we have seen, were echoes of Shakerism, growing fainter and fainter, as the time-distance increased. Then the Shaker movement with its echoes was sounding also in England, when Robert Owen undertook to convert the world to Communism, and it is evident enough that he was really a far-off follower of the Rappites.

France also had heard of Shakerism, before St. Simon or Fourier began to meditate and write Socialism. These men were nearly contemporaneous with Owen, and all three evidently obeyed a common impulse. That impulse was the sequel and certainly in part the effect of Shakerism.

Thus it is no more than bare justice to say, that we are indebted to the Shakers more than to any or all other social architects of modern times. Their success has been the 'specie basis' that has upheld all the paper theories, and counteracted the failures, of the French and English schools. It is very doubtful whether Owenism or Fourierism would have ever existed, or if they had, whether they would have ever moved the practical American nation, if the facts of Shakerism had not existed before them and gone along with them. But to do complete justice we must go a step further. While we say that the Rappites, the Zoarites, the Ebenezers, the Owenites, and even the Fourierists are all echoes of the Shakers, we must also say that the Shakers are the far-off echoes of the PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

What then has been Fourier's function? Surely his vast labors and their results have not been useless.

His main achievement has been destruction. He was a merciless critic and scolder of the old civilization. His magnificent imaginations of good things to come have also served the purpose, in the general development of sociology, of what rhetoricians call _excitation_. But his theory of positive construction is, in our opinion, as worthless as the theories of St. Simon and Compte. And so many socialist thinkers have been fuddled by it, that it is at this moment the greatest obstruction to the healthy progress of Social Science.

Practically it says to the world--"The experiments of the Shakers and other religious Communities, though successful, are unscientific and worthless; the experiments of the Fourierists that failed so miserably, were illegitimate and prove nothing; inductions from these or any other facts are useless; the only thing that can be done to realize true a.s.sociation, is to put together eighteen hundred human beings on a domain three miles square, with a palace and outfit to match. Then you will see the equilibrium of the pa.s.sions and spontaneous order and industry, insuring infinite success." As these conditions are well known to be impossible, because n.o.body believes in the promised equilibrium and success, the upshot of this teaching is despair. But the nineteenth century is not sitting at the feet of despair; and it will clear Fourierism out of its way.

THE INDUCTIVE SCHOOL OF SOCIALISM, instead of thus shutting the gates of mercy on mankind, says to all: The enormous economies and advantages of combination, which you see in ten thousand joint-stock companies around you, and in the wealth of the Shakers and other successful a.s.sociations, and even the blessings of magnificent and permanent HOMES, which you do _not_ see in those combinations, are prizes offered to AGREEMENT. They require no special number. If two or three of you shall agree, you can take those prizes; for by agreement and consequent success, two or three will soon become many. They require no special amount of capital. If you are poor, by combination you can become rich. Agreement can make its own fortune, and need not wait to be endowed. The blessing of heaven is upon it, and it can work its way from the lowest poverty to all the wealth that Fourier taught his disciples to beg from capitalists.

Thus demanding equilibrium of the pa.s.sions and harmony at the outset, instead of looking for them as the miraculous result of getting together vast a.s.semblages, we throw to the winds the limitations and impossible conditions of Fourierism. And the harmony we ask for as condition precedent, is not chimerical, but already exists. All the facts we have, indicate that it comes by religion; and the idea is evidently growing in the public mind that religion is the _only_ bond of agreement sufficient for family a.s.sociation. If any dislike this condition, we say: Seek agreement in some other way, till all doubt on this point shall be removed by abundant experiment. The lists are open. We promise nothing to non-religious attempts; but we promise all things to agreement, let it come as it may. If Paganism or infidelity or nothingarianism can produce the required agreement, they will win the prize. But on the other hand if it shall turn out in this great Olympic of the nineteenth century, that Christianity alone has the harmonizing power necessary to successful a.s.sociation, then Christianity will at last get its crown.