Table Of ContentPAUSE FOR TRANSITION
PAUSE FOR TRANSITION
AN ANALYSIS OF THE RELATION OF MAN
MIND AND SOCIETY
by
BART LANDHEER
Peace Palace Library
THE HAGUE
MARTINUS NIJHOFF
1957
Copyright 1957 by Martinus Nijhoff. The Hague. Holland
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1957
All rights reserved including the right to translate or to reproduce
i
this book or parts thereof in any form
ISBN 978-94-011-8597-4 ISBN 978-94-011-9365-8 (eBook)
DOl 10.1007/978-94-011-9365-8
INTRODUCTION
The idea of the present study is basically a simple one. It attempts to
reconcile the concept of social evolution with that of the structural unity
of Man, an idea that is becoming increasingly dominant in the exact as
well as in the social sciences.
The idea of structure as it emerges from the social field is applied to
the human mind as the ultimate cause of society. While pragmatism
interpreted the mind as reacting as a whole, the concept of structure
places the relation of Man versus his Environment in a different light,
and attempts to determine the possible limits of social development.
These problems are analyzed in a number of introductory chapters
while the basic approach is illustrated by an analysis of some aspects of
the growth of Western civilization. Some fictitious "case-studies" have
been added in order to leave room for an imaginative interpretation
which sometimes can bring out points which are more difficult to
explain in "objective" language.
The starting point of the study was in the social field, and, if
references to neural processes are occasionally included, they are, of
course, meant as tentative suggestions. This holds also true for the idea
which is occasionally submitted that social processes might be ultimately
related to energy-processes and energy-transformations. The desire to
find a link between the social and the exact sciences is nowadays a
common one, and the author felt that there was no reason to omit
certain connections which at times appeared to be interesting as well
as puzzling.
It has not been the aim to present a scientific study but rather to
formulate various aspects of an idea as these accumulated over a number
of years. There is no claim to having covered the thinking in any given
field but this book is more a presentation of how a number of expe
riences, studies and observations were translated in the mind of the
author.
Such a process might be useful or interesting to others; it also might
misfire as being overly individualistic. It is hoped that the first will be
the case. If, at times, a lighter tone has been adopted, this was done
only because the more exhaustive treatment which was needed did not
seem to be possible, and, from an observation which has come to the
author that a change in tone or style makes reading less of an effort
than when everything is placed upon one level of thought and expression.
The original bibliographical references of Chapters VII-XII (with
the exclusion of Chapter IX) were lost during wartime migrations. If
they are incomplete, apologies are offered. The author wants to stress,
VI Introduction
however, that the historical chapters are meant as an illustration of
the structural theory which is presented in the first part. The historical
materials contained in them have been derived from the works men
tioned in the bibliography and do not lay any claim to originality or
historical research.
J.
The author is greatly indebted to Professor Tinbergen, of the
Economic University of Rotterdam, for reading the manuscript and
offering many helpful suggestions. He is also much indebted to Mr.
Earle Balch, Cultural Relations Officer, at the U.S. Embassy at The
Hague, for having cast an expert eye at style and presentation.
Finally, much gratitude is due to Miss A. M. P. Mollema, of The
Hague, for having proofread the manuscript and for having prepared
the Index.
To publish a manuscript which does not fall into any clear cut
category is an hazardous venture, and the author is deeply grateful to
the publishing house of Martinus Nijhoff, N.V. at The Hague, for
having shown an interest strong enough to make the publication of
this work possible.
The Hague, April 1957. B. Landheer
CONTENTS
Introduction v
PART I
DEVELOPMENT OF THE BASIC APPROACH
I. About Basic Concepts 3
II. The Circumference 15
III. The Diameter 27
IV. The Specific Attribute of the Greeks 37
V. Mental Reactions and Social Structure. 52
VI. Symbols and the Individual. Excerpt from a case-study 66
PART II
APPLICATION OF THE BASIC APPROACH TO WESTERN
CIVILIZATION
VII. The Medieval Attitude. . . . 81
VIII. The Beginnings of Hedonism. . 95
IX. Reason and Emotion. A case-study 107
X. Political Economy Makes Its Appearance . 120
XI. Rationalism and Enlightenment. . . . 138
XII. The Social Thinking of the New Era. . 153
XIII. The Reactions to the Hedonistic Period. 170
XIV. The Decline of Hedonism. . . . . 183
XV. The Virtue of Weakness. A case-study. . 196
XVI. Beginning of a New Culture Period. . . 208
XVII. Regional Civilization in Relation to National Cultures 222
XVIII. Global Society and Global Organization. . . . . . 234
PART III
REALITY AND SPECULATION
XIX. Outlook for the Future 249
Bibliographical Notes 257
General Index. . . . . . . . 272
PART I
DEVELOPMENT OF THE BASIC APPROACH
CHAPTER I
ABOUT BASIC CONCEPTS
The idea of the present study dates back a long time. It originated
perhaps with the realization - about 20 or 25 years ago - that there
seemed to be a severe cleavage between Man as he appeared in the
social sciences and the reality of life, although it is undeniable that
much of this cleavage has been bridged. But it has been disappointing
to the social sciences that much of this process was carried out outside
their realm or by thinkers who were motivated more by strong emotional
impulses than by ideas which had been derived from the social sciences
as such 1. The interplay between social reality and social thought is a
phenomenon which appears to become more visible afterwards when
it seems clearer that the success of a philosophy or a theory was not
caused so much by its theoretical clarity as by its expression of a
social need which had been felt but which had not found any adequate
formulation.
One of the most important underlying factors of this relationship
between idea and reality seems to be that it is itself subject to change
and the degree of change which is natural to one society may be
detrimental to alIo.her.
n
we desire change - as an individual or as a group -, we tend to
project our wishes into the image of a more desirable world which
then begins to function as a motive for action. The lower the stage of
development of individual or group, the stronger the tension between
ideal and reality while, as we progress towards realization of a fair
percentage of Man's life goals, the more we grow impatient if image
and reality do not blend into the unity for which we believe we are
striving.
This means that all our ideas and philosophies are placed under a
certain perspective 2, and it is not unusual to find implied in the
thinking of the 20th century that if reality can be shaped satisfactorily,
the ideological superstructure will take care of itself. This idea is
appealing through its simplicity but it can be questioned whether its
tull implications have been understood.
The point of departure of an investigation of this problem must
necessarily lie in the concept that the distance between idea and reality
is a changing one 3, while the tacit assumption that the decrease of
distance means its gradual abolishment could be either a reality or an
optical illusion.
4 About Basic Concepts
Much confusion has been caused by the fact that our social thinking
has been largely in terms of national or civilizational groups but much
less in terms of mankind as a whole, and insofar as this type of thinking
has occurred, it has postulated the growth of the individual, abstractly
conceived, to a stage of greater maturity as, for instance, in rationalism.
The latter type of thinking has caused the popular belief that we are
constantly approaching an equalitarian society although social reality
offers little to support this contention. It is then assumed that it is
only due to insufficient technology or backward social institutions if
this society fails to materialize.
Yet, it is not only social reality but social theory which give us cause
to examine this whole complex relationship much more carefully.
If we take mankind as a whole, the most salient observation that can
be made is its quantitative increase as well as its growing complexity. As
human society shows an impressive rate of growth, it would be far more
probable that this rate of growth, if not increasing at the same or a
higher rate, might at best level off; but it would not be reasonable to
expect it to become static. As a result, if the rate of social change
changes in intensity, also the projection of our wishes into the future
would change in intensity; but they could not be expected to disappear.
If it is also observed that the structure of human society is becoming
more complex, due to an increasing refinement of the division of
labor, it becomes clear that there are two opposing forces in social
reality as well as in social thought, viz. the need for a structured society
and a desire for greater equality. Between those two forces some com
promise must be achieved, and it falls to the social sciences to be
helpful in the struggle for this compromise which might be of decisive
importance for the survival of Man.
The idea of the basic equality of Man is appealing to us all, and it
has been preached for centuries by religion, philosophy, political ideals,
Marxism, economic reform movements, etc. It has been of such over
whelming importance as a motive force in modern society that it has
frequently obscured the equally vital requirement of human society, viz.
that of structure. Human society shows divisions 'lccording to age and
sex, labor, professions, political power, ideological power, etc. while even
those institutions which aim at greater equality like political parties,
religious groups, etc. show themselves a definitely hierarchical structure.
Thus, it would seem that what we need to investigate is not so much
any absolute choice between an equalitarian or a structured society but
the degree of structure and the degree of individual freedom 4.
It is also essential that social science does not occupy itself with what
seems desirable, except as one factor which deserves investigation but
About Basic Concepts 5
rather with the possible forms this relationship can assume in human
society. We do not occupy ourselves with a problem that gives room to
a considerable degree of free choice because it is determined largely
by the quantity of people who make up human society. If X people
live in a given territory, and, after Y years, this number has increased
2 x, it is hardly realistic to assume that it is up to the people themselves
to "choose" whether their society will be more or less complex. The need
tor survival will automatically force the social group into those forms
which seem the most effective answer - in terms of its capacity and
development - to the challenge 5.
The struggle between existing structure and emerging structural
forms is a concomitant of social life, and it might well be that the idea
of equality is a psychological mechanism by which these changes are
brought about. However, it is not implied that social distance should
be regarded as a constant.
In the first place, the structure of a given society is obviously deter
mined by its need-structure, but its need-structure does not reflect only
present but also future needs. The relationship between those two
need-categories obviously depends a great deal upon the degree of
cultural development of the group in question. It is undoubtedly pos
sible to divide human needs in a general way into material ones, like
food, shelter, sex, protection, affection, etc., mental ones, like the
need for education, technology, legal and governmental organization,
etc. and spiritual needs like religious, artistic needs, etc. but, while those
needs repeat themselves in a general way in most societies, their com
plexity seems to be a function of the quantitative quality of the group
as well as of the degree of cultural development.
In other words while structure is an absolute attribute of a social
group, the complexity of this structure is determined by a number of
factors about which we have to seek some clarity.
Although the attribute of structure is increasingly stressed in con
temporary social science, the explanation of this fact has not found the
same amount of attention because it is seen as a postulate, like the
rationalistic idea of equality, more than as a reality.
We have operated so long with the concept of an abstractly conceived
individual that our thought-patterns are reluctant to admit the more
complex idea of the structured group which also holds less emotional
appeal as a motive force for possible action. As a result of our ration
alistic thought-habits, we still think of Man in a conceptualization
which we attempt to give permanence so that it gives no room to the
factor of change which should be our starting-point.
However, if we attempt to think of Mankind as a structured group,
