Before CHAPTER XXXIV THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ALTRUISTIC SENTIMENT
Project Gutenberg EPUB3 edition
Westermarck, Edward
The first French revolution marks the beginning of a new era in the history of patriotism. It inspired the masses with passion for the unity of the fatherland, the Republic “one and indivisible.” At the same time it declared all nations to be brothers, and when it made war on foreign nations the object was only to deliver them from their oppressors.206 But gradually the interest in the affairs of other countries grew more and more selfish, the attempt to emancipate was absorbed in the desire to subjugate; and this awoke throughout Europe a feeling which was destined to become the most powerful force in the history of the nineteenth century, the feeling of nationality. When Napoleon introduced French administration in the countries whose sovereigns he had deposed or degraded, the people resisted the change. The resistance was popular, as the rulers were absent or helpless, and it was national, being directed against foreign institutions. It was stirred by the feeling of national rather than political unity, it was a protest against the dominion of race over race. The national element in this movement had in a manner been anticipated by the French Revolution itself. The French people was regarded by it as an ethnological, not as an historic, unit; descent was put in the place of tradition; the idea of the sovereignty of the people uncontrolled by the past gave birth to the idea of nationality independent of the political influence of history.
But, as has been truly remarked, men were made conscious of the national element of the revolution by its conquests, not in its rise.207
Ever since, the racial feeling has been the most vigorous force in European patriotism, and has gradually become a true danger to humanity. Beginning as a protest against the dominion of one race over another, this feeling led to a condemnation of every state which included different races, and finally developed into the complete doctrine that state and nationality should so far as possible be coextensive.208 According to this theory the dominant nationality cannot admit the inferior nationalities dwelling within the boundaries of the state to an equality with itself, because, if it did, the state would cease to be national, and this would be contrary to the principle of its existence; or the weaker nationalities are compelled to change their language, institutions, and individuality, so as to be absorbed in the dominant race. And not only does the leading nationality assert its superiority in relation to all others within the body politic, but it also wants to assert itself at the expense of foreign nations and races. To the nationalist all this is true patriotism; love of country often stands for a feeling which has been well described as love of more country.209 But at the same time opposite ideals are at work. The fervour of nineteenth century nationalism has not been able to quench the cosmopolitan spirit.
In spite of loud appeals made to racial instincts and the sense of national solidarity, the idea has been gaining ground that the aims of a nation must not conflict with the interests of humanity at large; that our love of country should be controlled by other countries’ right to prosper and to develop their own individuality; and that the oppression of weaker nationalities inside the state and aggressiveness towards foreign nations, being mainly the outcome of vainglory and greed, are inconsistent with the aspirations of a good patriot, as well as of a good man.
Our long discussion of moral ideas regarding such modes of conduct as directly concern other men’s welfare has at last come to an end. We have seen that they may be ultimately traced to a variety of sources: to the influence of habit or education, to egoistic considerations of some kind or other which have given rise to moral feelings, to notions of social expediency, to disinterested likings or dislikes, and, above all, to sympathetic resentment or sympathetic approval springing from an altruistic disposition of mind. But how to account for this disposition? Our explanation of that group of moral ideas which we have been hitherto investigating is not complete until we have found an answer to this important question. I shall therefore in the next chapter examine the origin and development of the altruistic sentiment.
Source notes
196 Guibal, Histoire du sentiment national en France pendant la guerre de Cent ans, p. 526 sq.
197 Legrand, L’idée de patrie, p. 20.
198 Block, Dictionnaire général de la politique, ii. 518.
199 Texte, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the Cosmopolitan Spirit in Literature, p. 79.
200 Palissot de Montenoy, Les philosophes, iii. 4, p. 75.
201 Diderot, Essai sur les règnes de Claude et de Néron, ii. 75 (Œuvres, vi. 244).
202 Voltaire, Pensées sur l’administration publique, 14 (Œuvres complètes, v. 351).
203Idem, Dictionnaire philosophique, art. Patrie (Œuvres complètes, viii. 118).
204 See Strauss, Der alte und der neue Glaube, p. 259 sq.
205 Lessing, quoted by Ziegler, Social Ethics, p. 121.
206 Block, op. cit. ii. 376.
207 See ‘Nationality,’ in Home and Foreign Review, i. 6 sqq.
208Ibid. p. 13 sq.
209 Robertson, Patriotism and Empire, p. 138.