Russell: Authority and the Individual, Special Indian
Edition (Reprint), published by Routledge 2010, First Published in 1949
(c) 2010, The Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation Ltd.
(c) 1995, Introduction by Kirk Willis
This collection of six lectures are popularly known as
Reith Lectures (which were delivered in the autumn and early winter of 1949, to
honor John Reith, the founding Director of BBC who was Proud, Imperious, and vindictive
autocratic administrator and formidable personality who succeeded brilliantly
both in bruising the sensibilities of subordinates and overseers alike and in
creating one of Britain's most admired and durable institutions) were
delivered by Bertrand Russell. Authority (which is a reflection of state power)
and the Individual (which reflects human freedom) as a book includes the
lectures on Social Cohesion and Human Nature, Social Cohesion and Government,
The Role of Individuality, The Conflict of Technique and Human Nature, Control
and Initiative - their Respective Spheres and Individual and Social Ethics.
The first essay (lecture) on social cohesion and
human nature deliberates on different aspects of commonalities in the
beings (animals and human) as well their distinctions. Russell gives a
very good example of Bees and Ants who have cooperation and unity of a group as
important instincts though they are 'never tempted to
anti-social actions and never deviate from devotion to the nest or the hive'. However
they do not dream like the human beings. It is the social group
called Family which necessitates the division of
labor as the men hunted while
the women stayed at home.
The transition from the early human beings to the
social beings is very nicely elaborated and defended with reasons, conditions
and considerations. Many a times we tend to live in the past with its
expressible glory, however each one of us live to earn that glory with which we
would associate ourselves later in life. That keeps driving us to perform
our better and to make greater achievements. Russell warns towards the
end of the essay of the destructive philosophies that might prevent us from
performing our best - 'If this is to be prevented, the savage in each one of
us must find some outlet not incompatible with civilised life and the happiness
of this equally savage neighbour.'
Second lecture entitled Social Cohesion and Government
discusses the responsibility and role of government in order to build
cohesion in societies. It also establishes the fact that the
relationship between societies and the government has to be
nurtured for better policy to rule. Different kinds
of governments ruling in different parts of the world from Old Stone
Age to the modern ones are exemplified in order to strengthen the argument as
to authority, obedience, enforcement, liberty, freedom,
religion, etc. Russell mentions - Governments,
from the earliest times at which it existed, has had two functions, one
negative and one positive. Its negative function has been to prevent
private violence, to protect life and property, to enact criminal law and
secure its enforcements and positive
functions of government at most times have been mainly confined to war: if
an enemy could be conquered and his territory acquired, everybody in the
victorious nation profited in a greater or less degree. He further
states that the ambit of positive functions is broadened now as the
governments have to provide education (consisting not only of the
acquisition of scholastic attainments, but also of the instilling of
certain loyalties and certain beliefs), and encouraging
industrial enterprises. The examples of the government in USA,
Britain, Egypt, Sweden, India, China are sketched very lucidly.
Third lecture entitled the role of individuality
basically deals with the impluses and desires of individuals for good as well
as for evil. The differences between individual's behaviour as the
change happen with their respective roles have been critically
discussed. The role of court poets, artists and their contribution towards
the expansion of glory of their patrons is well placed. We have been
witnessing such glorifications all through ages and the present time is no
exception. This is what makes his lecture still very relevant and
provides a questioning eye towards such self sponsored praises. Religion,
moral progress (innovation), rise of men of science, community feeling and
their role in building the base for individual behaviour is just
marvellous. Russell puts it - The
great men who stand out in history have been partly benefactors of mankind and
partly quite the reverse. Some, like the great religious and moral
innovators, have done what lay in their power to make men less cruel towards
each other, and less limited in their sympathies; some, like the men of
science, have given us a knowledge and understanding of natural processes
which, however it may be misused, must be regarded as in itself a splendid
thing...I cannot think of anything that mankind has gained by the existence of Jenghis Khan. I do
not know what good came of Robespierre...I
see no reason to be grateful to Lenin. But all these
men, good and bad alike, had a quality which I should not wish to see disappear
from the world. The lecture ends with a very hopeful note on the role of
modern organizations and institutions in allowing/disallowing the individuals
to play their constructive role.
Then comes the fourth lecture on the conflict of
technique and human nature. I like the very first sentence of this
lecture...man differs from other animals in many ways. More for the word ‘others’ as we
all consider human being as social animal. The comparison of men
with other animals is just excellent and voices his argument for the
differences and conflicts as part of human nature. The
change in the degree of conflict for early man to the modern man is expressed
brilliantly. However one has to remember that as these lectures
were given sometime in the early twentieth century, the term modern become
very relative. As a student of organizational behaviour and
strategic management, I really liked this lecture the most. This is why I
shall like to elaborate on this lecture more. Let us first read this
stanza and then discuss the issues involved on the basis of the researches done
in the last century (approx):
Consider a large factory, say one that makes motor
cars. The purpose of the organization is to make cars, but the purpose of
the workers is to earn wages. Subjectively, there is no common
purpose. The uniting purpose exists only in owners and managers, and may
be completely absent in most of those who do the work. Some may be proud
of the excellence of the cars produced, but most, through their unions, are
mainly concerned with wages and hours of work. (p 42)
When this lecture was delivered, around same time Ford
was leading car company and Fordism was in currency so far as management practices
are concerned which was also driven by the view as reflected by Russell (the
purpose of the workers is to earn wages). Primarily for survival it seems
correct but beyond that it is not just that. Elton Mayo's work (Howthorne
Experiment) defends an argument that work is a group activity and workers are
driven by many other factors as well. Herzberg's Hygiene theory concludes
on satisfiers and dissatisfiers and apart from Salary there are other factors
which play an important role. Further beyond management, Easterlin
Paradox also defends that the role of money ends till the basic needs are
fulfilled and beyond that there are other factors which become more important.
So the point is that at present can we continue with a framework of
mindset that the workers are working for wages only. I feel that would
certainly be a folly.
This lecture questions the basic premise of all the
problems of today's world. He questions the very concept of money and
monetization which has created a great divide. The conflict between
management (capital) and the worker (labor) and the role of the government to
resolve such conflict though he warns - it
would be unduly optimistic to expect that governments, even if democratic,
will always do what is best in public interest. His
another warning - Men can be
stimulated by hope or driven by fear, but the hope and the fear must
be vivid and immediate if they are to be effective without producing
weariness. His views on competition, democracy, role of government,
austerity, power, politics, industrial revolution are worth reading and
thinking which are highly contextual and lead to a thinking of well-being.
In continuation, fifth lecture is entitled control and
initiative: their respective spheres. The aim of government as he suggests
should be security, justice and conservation apart from taking care of
institutions which produce scientific research.
The spirit of the whole chapter lies in the fact that there cannot be fruitful initiative without government,
but there can be government without initiative. The role of government is well explained and
the problems in the absence of government are illustrated as well. The scope of initiatives and actions as
inspired by the governments are subject to control so that the governance
becomes better. These ideal roles of states
are to be subject to public scrutiny through appropriate institutions. The issues related to the remuneration,
industrial democracy and institutional control are well spelt in the lecture
keeping in mind the differences between nations as material goods are more a matter of possession than goods that are mental.
The last lecture in the book entitled individual and
social ethics concentrates on two points – first
to repeat briefly the conclusions reached in earlier lectures; and second, to relate social and political
doctrines to the individual ethics by which a man should guide his personal life.
Security and justice as mentioned as the function of the government in the
earlier lecture, require centralized governmental control. He suggests a supra body called world
government. This whole lecture provides
guidelines for the functioning of state keeping in mind the individual
initiatives and basic human ethics. His suggestions
as to governance of railways and control of scientific research are worth
reading. The religious texts like the
Old Testament are quoted for maintaining human/social ethics. As I
said in Lecture III, prophets, mystics, poets, scientific discoverers, are men
whose lives are dominated by a vision; they are essentially solitary men. When their dominant impulse is strong, they
feel that they cannot obey authority if it runs counter to what they profoundly
believe to be good. The assertions
by such individuals and bodies in order to follow ethics while being loyal to
their masters are great examples which as the part of state are still
relevant. Individuals play their roles
according to their loyalties. Men who boast of being what is called ’practical’
are for the most part exclusively preoccupied with means. But there is only one-half of wisdom. In
the present world it might sound very conservative but in the name of
practicality and professionalism the spirit gets lost and the drive to create
new knowledge, the understanding of love and friendship, the feeling of the
smell of blooming flowers, the glory, etc etc, all fall flat. Love of
power still leads to vast tyrannies, or to mere obstruction when its grosser
forms are impossible. And fear – deep,
scarcely conscious fear – is still the dominant motive in very many lives. He
guides towards the end of the lecture – self
control has always been a watchword of the moralists, but in the past it has
been a control without understanding.
These lectures are still very relevant. The language is excellent and the approach is
very convincing. The examples are
contemporary. At times his personal bias towards individuals, states and
institutions is reflected but he accepts that.
Overall reading these lectures has really benefitted me immensely to
understand the basics of individual and group behavior in different social settings. I wish I had personally attended these
lectures.
