Paper VI. on Social Forces (Continued) — Polemical Statics and Dynamics
Most Noble Professors and Students of Girtham,—We have embarked upon a stormy sea of speculation, on a voyage of grand discovery, and the dangerous waves of adverse criticism, and the deceptive under-current of prejudice, often make the steersman’s lot by no means an enviable one. But our vessel is sound and perfectly equipped, and therefore I do not fear to guide her across the great unknown.
It may have occurred to you that the problems which present themselves for solution in social science are far more difficult and complicated than those which arise in ordinary mathematics. That is undoubtedly the case; but this extra degree of difficulty is due to the fact that we make no assumptions; we take the things as they really are, not as they are assumed to be. In physical science, if we take into consideration the resistance of the air, the curvature of the earth, the rigid connection which exists between particles in the same body, and a host of other things which are often conveniently neglected in elementary works, how complicated the various problems become! So we must not be surprised at some of the difficulties which occur in social science, as nothing is neglected; the whole problem is before us, and having solved it we need not make allowances for any falsely assumed data.
It is possible that other professors of this science may come to slightly different conclusions to those which I have arrived at. That is only to be expected, because their original observations may have slightly varied. But in physical science allowances are made for different observers. In astronomy, for example, we find the value of the ‘Personal Equation.’ One observer on looking through the telescope may take the meridian of a star rather differently from another watcher of the heavenly bodies, and the personal equation is used to make allowances for this quickness, or slowness, of observation. So in social science there must be a personal equation too, and our object ought to be, in the ordinary affairs of life as well as in the higher duties of scientific action, to make our personal equation as small as possible. But until the old proverb, ‘Quot homines, tot sententiæ,’ has ceased to have any meaning, there will be abundant need of this most useful aid to accuracy.
The close connection which exists between social forces and material forces is plainly shown by the doctrine of the conservation of energy. ‘This doctrine,’ says Dr. Tyndall, ‘recognises in the material universe a constant sum of power made up of items among which the most Protean fluctuations are incessantly going on. It is as if the body of nature were alive, the thrill and interchange of its energies resembling those of an organism. The parts of the stupendous whole shift and change, augment and diminish, appear and disappear; while the total of which they are the parts remains quantitatively immutable, plus accompanies minus, gain accompanies loss, no item varying in the slightest degree without an absolutely equal change of some other item in the opposite direction.’ So do the forces in the social world ebb and flow, rise and fall, carrying on the same universal law which regulates the energy of material force.
I will now proceed to enumerate some of those forces which exercise such a powerful influence on society.
First, let us take the force of Public Opinion, which seems to exercise a relentless sway over the minds and manners of men. This is a very subtle and secret force, which is most difficult to trace, and resembles electricity in the science of physics. We cannot see it, but are only able to judge of its power by its results. Its point of application is not in the individual, but in the collection of individuals who make up the social system; and it is, in reality, the resultant of, or the compromise between, the various elementary forces which make up human society. Yes, compromise is a purely mechanical affair, based on the principle of the parallelogram of forces; and as public opinion is the result of a compromise, we may calculate its force. For example: ‘It is required to know the state of public opinion in the matter of politics, when the results of a General Election show that the Conservatives are to the Liberals as 10: 9.’
Let OC be the direction of the Conservative force.
Let OL be that of the Liberal.
Then by data OC: OL:: 10: 9.
Complete the parallelogram, and join OP.
Then OP represents the force of public opinion in magnitude and direction.
N.B.—The direction of OL is determined by the amount of deviation of the policy of the Liberals from that of the Conservatives.
As in physical, so in social science, impulsive forces sometimes act, and effectually disturb our system and our calculations. Public opinion is very liable to the action of disturbing forces. Panic is an impulsive force, which defies the power of the most learned professors of social science to determine its magnitude and direction. Some strange unforeseen catastrophe—the fascination caused by a brilliant and unscrupulous orator, a cruel wrong, a blind revenge for real or imaginary injustice—will sometimes rouse one element of passion latent in the vast body of public opinion; so that it breaks with all that hitherto restrained and balanced it, and precipitates society into a course of conduct inconsistent with its former behaviour, and bloodshed, revolution, the breaking-up of laws, are the terrible results of panic or revengeful passion.
Society is, as it were, split up by the terrible action of such impulsive forces, just as wood is split up by the repeated blows of the hatchet. It is, therefore, the duty of statesmen to increase the power or force of cohesion, to strengthen the fibres of the State, so that the force of such impulsive blows may not be felt, nor disturb the continuity of the framework of the State. If such measures had been adopted in the neighbouring country of France, much misery might have been avoided, and the terrible revolutions which have so frequently convulsed her social system entirely prevented.
Friction is another disturbing element in our calculations, and although it may be made a useful servant, it is a bad master in mathematics, as in polemics. Without the aid of friction, progress would be impossible. For example: Take the case of a man with perfectly smooth skates on perfectly hard, smooth ice; he would be unable to reach the land unless he had provided himself with some stones, by throwing which he would just be able to get to his destination by a backward motion. The engine would be unable to proceed on its iron road if it were not for friction. The same is true in polemical science: the government of the country would not be able to be carried on under our present conditions if it were not for party friction. But suppose it increased indefinitely, party friction becomes party obstruction; and the engine of the State would no longer proceed smoothly and evenly along its appointed course at the rate of sixty miles an hour, but would resemble an old-fashioned coach, up to its axle-trees in mud, its motion altogether stopped by the action of party friction.
We have seen that forces have two ways of acting: that of compelling rest and that of producing motion. In statics forces act so as to prevent any change of motion, or disturb the body’s original position. In kinetics, on the contrary, the power is recognised as acting so as to produce or change a body’s motion. Now, in polemical science we have these two ways of considering the action of forces. There is the statical or conservative force, which compels rest, which seeks security, stability, and peace, and is not ardently devoted to change. It reduces the system to equilibrium. There are, of course, two kinds of equilibrium—stable and unstable—according as the social and political system is in a healthy or unhealthy state. If a body is in stable equilibrium, and any slight motion takes place, the body will return immediately to its former position; but if in unstable, it will decline further and further away from its original position, and be entirely upset. So a healthy and sound conservative equilibrium is not disturbed by outside forces, and the State will resume its former position of stability and rest when the opposing force is withdrawn. But an unhealthy and insecure conservatism is as easily disturbed as an egg balanced on its narrow end.
The kinetics of society, that is to say the Radical way of estimating force, is the party of motion, generally supposed to be the ‘party of progress.’ It has therefore many attractions in the eyes of those who delight in motion, speed, and rushing about. To run at full speed, to feel the keen air upon one’s face, to experience the delightful sensation of freedom of will, and limb, are joys which cannot be denied. Such exercise is beneficial to the system, bodily or political. Motion is the life of all things; it is characteristic of nature; it adores nature; because it is an emblem and characteristic of life. The ceaseless rolling of the ocean waves, the swaying of the trees, the bending of the flowers, the waving of the corn, all these fill us with pleasure; whereas a flat uninteresting plain, unrelieved by the motion of terrestrial objects, is depressing to the spirit. So there is much to be said in favour of motion, and Carlyle has defined progress as ‘living movement.’ And men love this ‘living movement,’ and take up the Laureate’s cry:
‘Forward, forward, let us range,
Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing
Grooves of change.’
But, after all, there is a danger in this everlasting motion. We cannot tell whither this progress may lead. It may be along a safe sure road; but perchance a precipice may open out before us; and rejoicing in the acceleration of our velocity, with eyes intent upon some distant heights of glory and ambition, we may not discover our danger until it is too late to stop, and a terrible plunge into an unknown abyss of turmoil and tumultuous waves is the alarming result of an unguarded policy of unrestrained ‘progress.’ I recall to my mind the quaint words of Holmes which aptly illustrate my contention.
‘If the wild filly, “Progress”, thou would’st ride,
Have young companions ever at thy side;
But wouldst thou stride the staunch old mare, “Success,”
Go with thine elders, though they please thee less.’
Progress and success do not always go together hand in hand; and while motion is essential to life, it is not always safe to urge a country forward at too great a speed; and security and stability are quite as important to the nation’s life as actual progress.
There are other impulsive forces which act occasionally in the sphere of politics, and which baffle all our calculations, and exclude scientific considerations of the polemical problems which arise. Ambition is such an impulsive force, and when the rulers of the people are actuated by it, and struggle for money, place, and power, politics is degraded from its position as a science, and it becomes impossible to estimate the result of forces so generated.
In my next lecture I propose to treat the important subject of the Laws which govern States and Governments, and which regulate, generate, and control the social forces which we have seen at work in the body politic.