Vol. 1 · pages 496–500

12 MR. RUSSELL AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF SOCIETY Review on the “ Principles of Social Reconstruction” by the Hon’ble Mr. Bertrand Russell Published : Journal of the Indian Economic Society Vol. I, 1918

MR. RUSSELL AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF SOCIETY The “Principles of Social Reconstruction”1 by the Honourable Mr. Bertrand Russell is a war book. Bellicose literature, on the whole, is either propagandist or preventive. Mr. Russell’s book, though it falls under the latter, must be distinguished from the rest of the same class. Of the preventive books some argue against the unnatural geographical barriers within which have been impounded some unwilling nations by their masterful conquerors : others like Mr. Angell’s Great Illusion, attempt to show that in the calculus of war loss prevails over gain even to the victor. Mr. Russell’s however, is a diagnosis, altogether different. Wars, he believes, cannot be banished by rationalistic appeals such as above, “It is not by reason alone” he says “that wars can be prevented but by a positive life of impulses and passions antagonistic to those that lead to war. It is the life of impulse that needs to be changed, not only the life of conscious thought”. 2 As his diagnosis is different so is his social philosophy. To him, “the chief thing to be learned through the war has been a certain view of the springs of human action what they are, and what we may legitimately hope that they will become. This view, if it is true, seems to afford a basis for political philosophy more capable of standing erect in a time of crisis than the philosophy of traditional liberalism has shown itself to be.” 3 In consonance with this attitude he adopts the standpoint of the behaviouristic psychology. 4 A most important contribution of this new development in the Science of Psychology consists in a novel view of the springs of human action. It has overthrown the doctrine that external 1. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd. 1917, 6/—net. 2. Principles of Social Reconstruction, p. 13. 3. Ibid:, p. 9. 4. Readers of Mr. Russell will do well to aquaint themselves with Prof. E. L. Thorndike’s “Educational Psychology”, Vol. I, “On the Original Nature of Man”.

484 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES circumstances are responsible for man’s activity If it were so, contends the behaviourist, it would presuppose a quiescent being which is a biological untruth. Man, it propounds, has the springs of action within him for he is born with certain tendencies to act. External circumstances do not induce activity. They only re-direct it. These tendencies to act, further says the behaviourist, in their working, become modified by the effect of the Social milieu in which they function. The modifications which these original tendencies undergo are of the highest importance, They constitute Education in the broadest sense of the word. All modifications, however, are not equally valuable and it is the business of the reformer to eliminate the circumstances and institutions that modify these tendencies for the socially worse and preserve and introduce those that will modify them for the socially better. Whatever that may be, it is of immense social value that these tendencies are capable of indefinite modifications. This is possible only because as Mr. Russell says “ Man’s impulses are not fixed from the beginning by his native dispositions. Within certain limits, they are profoundly modified by his circumstances and his way of life. The nature of these modifications ought to be studied, and the results of his study ought to be taken account of in judging the good or harm that is done by political and social institutions.” 5 In six illuminating chapters Mr. Russell studies the modifications that human nature has undergone under the institutions of State, War, Property, Education, Marriage and Religion. It is impossible to give an adequate idea of Mr. Russell’s social philosophy by summarizing the contents of each one of these chapters. They are living contributions to the literature of the several subjects they deal with. Full of suggestions, they provoke thought and ought therefore to be read from the original. This might be unconventional so far as reviewing is concerned but is justified by the fact that this review is meant for an economic journal for the purposes of which, we need only attend to the analysis of the institution of Property and the modifications it is alleged by Mr. Russell to produce in human nature. Before, however, proceeding to the task, it may be worth while discussing how the philosophy of war is related to the principles of growth as expounded by Mr. Russell. At the outset it must be said that, because his is an anti-war book, those who read in him the philosophy of quieticism will have read him all wrong. For, though Mr. Russell is anxious for the abolition of war, he explicitly states that “in spite of all the destruction which is wrought by the impulses that lead to war, there is more hope for a nation which has these impulses 5. Principles of Social Reconstruction, p. 19.

MR. RUSSELL AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF SOCIETY 485 than for a nation in which all impulse is dead. Impulse is the expression of life and while it exists, there is hope of its turning towards life instead of towards death ; but lack of impulse is death, and out of death no new life will come.” 6 He further acknowledges that “a great many of the impulses which now lead nations to go to war are themselves essential to any vigorous or progressive life. Without imagination and love of adventure a society becomes stagnant and begins to decay. Conflict, provided it is not destructive and brutal, is necessary in order to stimulate men’s activities and to secure the victory of what is living over what is dead and merely traditional. The wish for the triumph of one’s cause, the sense of solidarity with large bodies of men, are not things which a wise man will wish to destroy. It is only the outcome in death and destruction and hatred that is evil. The problem is to keep these impulses without making war the outlet for them.” 7 The gist of it all is that activity is the condition of growth. Mr. Russell, it must be emphasized, is against war but is not for quieticism ; for, according to him, activity leads to growth and quieticism is but another name for death. To express it in the language of Professor Dewey he is only against “force as violence” but is all for “force as energy.” It must be remembered by those who are opposed to force that without the use of it all ideals will remain empty just as without some ideal or purpose (conscious or otherwise) all activity will be no more than mere fruitless fooling. Ends and means (= force in operation) are therefore concomitants and the common adage that the end justifies the means contains a profound truth which is perverted simply because it is misunderstood. For if the end does not justify the means what else will? The difficulty is that we do not sufficiently control the operations of the means once employed for the achieving of some end. For a means when once employed liberates many ends—a fact scarcely recognised—and not the one only we wish it to produce. However, in our fanaticism for achievement we attach the article “the” to the end we cherish and pay no heed to the ends simultaneously liberated. Of course for the exigencies of an eminently practical life we must set an absolute value on some one end. But in doing this we must take precaution that the other ends involved are not sacrificed. Thus, the problem is that if we are to use force, as we must, to achieve something, we must see that while working for one end we do not destroy, in the process, other ends equally worthy of maintenance. Applying this to the present war, no justification. I think, is needed for the use of force. What needs to the justified is the destructive violence. The justification must satisfy the world that the ends given prominence to by one or other of 6. Principles of Social Reconstruction, p. 21. 7. Ibid., p. 93.