|
The
Complexity of Human Nature
by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
Human society is complex in its nature.
Though this expression is inaccurate, the fact to
which it refers is none the less true; namely, the
classification of talents and capacities. But who
does not see that these talents and capacities,
owing to their infinite variety, give rise to an
infinite variety of wills, and that the character,
the inclinations, and -- if I may venture to use
the expression -- the form of the ego, are
necessarily changed; so that in the order of
liberty, as in the order of intelligence, there are
as many types of individuals, as many characters as
heads, whose tastes, fancies, and propensities,
being modified by dissimilar ideas, must
necessarily conflict? Man, by his nature and his
instinct, is predestined to society; but his
personality, every varying, is adverse to it.
In societies of animals, all the members do
exactly the same things. The same genius directs
them; the same will animates them. A society of
beasts is a collection of atoms, round, hooked,
cubical, or triangular, but always perfectly
identical. These personalities do not vary, and we
might say that a single ego governs them
all. The labors which animals perform whether alone
or in society, are exact reproductions of their
character. Just as the swarm of bees is composed of
individual bees, alike in nature and equal in
value, so the honeycomb is formed of individual
cells, constantly and invariably repeated.
But man's intelligence, fitted for his social
destiny and his personal needs, is of a very
different composition, and therefore gives rise to
a wonderful variety of human wills. In the bee, the
will is constant and uniform, because the instinct
which guides it is invariable, and constitutes the
animal's whole life and nature. In man, talent
varies, and the mind wavers; consequently, his will
is multiform and vague. He seeks society, but
dislikes the constraint and monotony; he is an
imitator, but fond of his own ideas, and
passionately in love with his works.
If, like the bees, every man were born possessed
of talent, perfect knowledge of certain kinds, and,
in a word, an innate acquaintance with the
functions he has to perform, but destitute of
reflective and reasoning faculties, society would
organize itself. We should see one man plowing a
field, another building houses; this one forging
metals, that one cutting clothes; and still others
storing the products and superintending their
distribution. Each one, without inquiring as to the
object of his labor, and without troubling himself
about the extent of his task, would obey orders,
bring his product, receive his salary, and would
then rest for a time; keeping meanwhile no
accounts, envious of nobody, and satisfied with the
distributor, who never would be unjust to any one.
Kings would govern, but would not reign; for to
reign is to be a proprietor `a l'engrais, as
Bonaparte said: and having no commands to give,
since all would be at their posts, they would serve
rather as rallying centers than as authorities or
counsellors. It would be a state of ordered
communism, but not a society entered into
deliberately and freely.
But man acquires skill only by observation and
experiment. He reflects, then, since to observe and
experiment is to reflect; he reason, since he
cannot help reasoning. In reflecting, he becomes
deluded; in reasoning, he makes mistakes, and,
thinking himself right, persists in them. He is
wedded to his opinions; he esteems himself, and
despises others. Consequently, he isolates himself;
for he could not submit to the majority without
renouncing his will and his reason, -- that is,
without disowning himself, which is impossible. And
this isolation, this intellectual egotism, this
individuality of opinion, lasts until the truth is
demonstrated to him by observation and
experience.
Excerpted from What is
Property?, by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
|
Proudhon:
What is Property? (Cambridge Texts in the History
of Political Thought), by Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon
|