| Webmaster |
The Laws of History
WAIS is interested primarily in the contemporary world. Nevertheless,
we must understand the past. I have long been concerned with the laws of history,
which I deem similar to the laws of nature. Presumably the contemporary world
obeys these laws. I have formulated a very large number of them, and would like
to spell them out in a major volume. Unfortunately, my time is running out,
so I have decided to state them briefly in a series of postings, in the hope
that someone, possibly a WAISer, will take the ball and run to the touchdown
line. I use this American football metaphor deliberately, because I am sure
that, given the nature of academia, the player will be brutally tackled before
the ball lands on the publisher's touchdown line. I would appreciate any comments
on this statement of intent, and later on each of the postings.
History is a continuous line, but it is not straight.
There have been many attempts to see a pattern in history, and they can be applied
to the US today. The best known is Hegel's thesis, antithesis, synthesis. As
for the US, the thesis was the growing power of King George III, against which
there had been protests in the British parliament. That power was less than
that of the French absolute monarchy, with which the American revolutionaries
allied themselves. The antithesis to this excessive power was freedom or democracy.
The synthesis will be responsibility. iI it does not materialize, the cyclical
view of history may prevail. Adriana Pena says:"It is not a betrayal of
our democratic principles to admit that democracy can fall on evil days, come
to a crisis, and even reach a state of bankruptcy as Alexander Groth calls it,
and in that case a dictatorship can be the only form of government possible?".
John Heelan comments: "Were not Plato and Aristotle similarly exercised
by the cycles of Monarchy, Oligarchy, Democracy and Tyranny?" Rome provided
an example of this. It was ruled by the Latin and Etruscan kings until 510 BC,
when Tarquinius Superbus was expelled, and the Senate established an oligarchy.
Then came the struggle between the Patricians and the Plebeians, whose Latin
name indicates democracy, a Greek word. Julius Caesar established a dictatorship
(then a favorable word, although its enemies called it a tyranny),
The US was part of a monarchy. The Founding Fathers established an oligarchy,
which was succeeded by the democracy of Andrew Jackson. Some observers, the
realists, say that the US is now being divided into a small, but powerful and
wealthy oligarchy and the mass of impoverished people. The oligarchy is a body
guided by the military-industrial complex and, acting as one machine, is a disguised
dictatorship or tyranny.. Ôptimists see US history as a continuing upward
procession leading to democracy. The realists say the optimists are confusing
appearance with substance. In sum, many interpretations of history are possible.
Jon Kofas writes: "In reference to Professor Hilton's proposal on the LAWS
OF HISTORY, I thought that Baron de Montesquieu (Charles-Louis de Secondat)
may be someone to consider. In his study analyzing the causes of Rome's greatness
and decline, he minimized the role of religion, but he clearly believed that
certain laws applied to history, a study he would later take up in L'Esprit
des Lois at length. While the quest for "laws of history" and Montesquieu's
scholarly work are largely a product of the Age of New Science and sepcifically
Isaac Newton's efforts to discover the laws of the universe by applying a new
epistemology, sound arguments can also be made regarding the influence of religion
in human beings' thirst to comprehend holistically, perhaps metaphysically,
the macro-trends governing the course of history. Montesquieu was right to consider
political institutions, geography, and cultural dynamics as salient factors
in the laws of history. In his Newtonian quest, however, he left out the all
important economic factors, which classical economists from Adam Smith to Karl
Marx would add as the capitalist system consolidated in northwest Europe".
RH: Amen to Jon's succinct statement. I will post the hypothetical laws of history,
with my comments and a few references to authors. Such references would add
greatly to any comments by WAISers.
Human groups need leaders
The outpouring of grief over the death of President Reagan was incredible. People
waited in line up to five or six hours under Washington's relentless sun for
a chance to walk though the Capitol rotunda where he was lying in state. Some
fainted, and a few were taken to hospital. This was an expression of a deep
need for leadership. It is evident in many animal species, witness the disorderly
rush of sheep following their leader or the perfect V formation of some flying
birds, a formation which suggests a structured hierarchy. Hitler promoted the
führerprinzip, he being the Führer. I witnessed in 1933 the incredible
docility and even veneration displayed by most of the German people. One consequence
of this law is that anarchy goes against the laws of nature. Political leadership
can take several forms. Perhaps man is the head of the family according to the
laws of nature.
John Kofas comments on the Laws of History, Leadership: "Not just this
week with hundreds of thousands paying their respects to president Reagan, but
throughout history people have demonstrated a need for leadership, just as they
follow and obey their parents. However, do they follow leaders because of a
survival instinct as Palmiro Togliatti noted in Lectures on Fascism, because
they are socialized in a structured hierarchy which is to be found even in animal
behavior, because it is learned behavior as John Locke contended, or because
of some other combination of factors? Why did millions of Germans follow Hitler,
whose ideology and policies were based on hatred and destruction? Why did Italians
follow Mussolini? Was Nicolo Machiavelli right that human beings are mesmerized
by power? The assumptions we make about whether human nature is predominantly
rational or emotional, and the assumptions we make about the social environment's
influence on human behavior determine the answer to the question of leadership".
History is a continuing line
This refers to the history of mankind, so Einstein's theory of time is irrelevant.
Some cultures view time as circular rather than as a continuing line. This law
does not mean that the line is straight. Giambattista Vico introduced the idea
of cycles. The word "continuing" is used to reject silly but fashionable
talk about the end of history (We won, etc) . History will go on, bringing changes
we cannot anticipate. Conservatives who fail to recognize this may unwittingly
be promoting violent change. In the American Revolution there were faults on
both sides. On the British side it was the failure to see that the mercantile
colonial system was coming to an end. Will the line end, will there be an end
to human history? Almost certainly, but we do not know how or when.
From Greece, Harry Papasotiriou comments on the law of history "History
is a continuing line": "As a political scientist I am committed to
discovering patterns and regularities in political phenomena. In international
relations, my field of specialization, cyclical theories have had the most lasting
impact, and are usually the most appealing to me. Yet undeniably there is secular
change that makes each new phase in history unique in some ways. The challenge
therefore is to avoid either of two extreme positions: a) that the past can
tell us nothing about the present since it is unique, and b) that nothing ever
changes fundamentally, if one examines deeper recurring patterns.
It is worth pointing to E.H Carr's argument, that nations at the apex of international
power will tend to emphasize secular change and to view their moment of ascendancy
as unique. In the 19th century J.S. Mill stated that the most important battle
in British history was the battle of Marathon (490 B.C.), which was a way of
saying that all previous history was a build-up for the rise of Liberalism in
19th century Britain. Nations in decline, by way of contrast, will tend to emphasize
cyclical patterns. Carr's argument is not entirely convincing, but it should
caution us not to move too easily towards either end of the spectrum. Most Americans
tend to emphasize the uniqueness of the present, and of the present American
achievements. In international relations, Realist scholars tend to emphasize
cyclical patterns. From a political science perspective the challenge is to
discover regularities while taking into account the undeniable influence of
secular change. Liddell Hart pointed out, that the way humans react to danger
is constant, which allows us to devise general theories on international politics
and strategy. Yet political, economic, social and technological developments
also differentiate the international politics and strategy of each age from
its predecessors.
Daryl DeBell says: "I think it is interesting that so little is said about
the narcissism of leaders and the identification of their followers with them.
The idealization of the nation, and the satisfaction and false pride which goes
with it, are important determinants for the hubris which precedes the fall of
nations. The U.S. is flirting with that state now, with President Bush leading
the way. Religion is a strong and unfortunate hand-maiden to this process, with
the Jews the Chosen people, and with 'born again' Bush in the saddle and spurring
us on to remake everyone else in our image. We are being transformed from a
society which was admired and envied into one which is hated and feared, all
because of that narcissistic and potentially fatal pride. I have neglected to
mention Islam, whose adherents have jihad to intoxicate and motivate them. They
cannot be wrong either since it is Allah's will that they seek to fulfill. Jesus
at least did preach love as an ideal rather than power. Perhaps if leaders adopted
that we would be better off". RH: The refusal to recognize the corrupting
effect of money on the American political system, while accusing other countries
of not practising democracy, reminds me of the Pharisee who thanked the Lord
for not making him like other men.
| Webmaster |