CHAPTER I: A BACKGROUND FOR UNESCO
I. THE AIMS LAID DOWN FOR UNESCOUnesco -- the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation -- is by its title committed to two sets of aims. In the first place, it is international, and must serve the ends and objects of the United Nations, which in the long perspective are world ends, ends for humanity as a whole. And secondly it must foster and promote all aspects of education, science, and culture, in the widest sense of those words.
Its Constitution defines these aims more fully. The preamble begins with Mr. Attlee’s noble words -- “since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed”: it continues by stressing the dangers of ignorance -- “ignorance of each other’s ways and lives has been a common cause, throughout the history of mankind, of that suspicion and mistrust between the peoples of the world through which their differences have all too often broken into war”: and then proceeds to point out that the late war was made possible by the denial of certain basic principles -- “the democratic principles of the dignity, equality and mutual respect of men” -- and by the substitution for them of “the doctrine of the inequality of men and races.”
From these premises it proceeds to point out that “the wide diffusion of culture, and the education of humanity for justice and liberty and peace, are indispensable to the dignity of man and constitute a sacred duty which all the nations must fulfil in a spirit of mutual assistance and concern”: and draws the notable conclusion, never before embodied in an official document, that
a peace “based exclusively upon the political and economic arrangements of governments” would be inadequate, since it could not “secure the unanimous, lasting and sincere support of the peoples of the world,” and that “the peace must therefore be founded, if it is not to fail, upon the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind.” And finally, the States which are parties to the Constitution assert their belief “in full and equal opportunities of education for all, in the unrestricted pursuit of objective truth, and in the free exchange of ideas and knowledge”: they agree “to develop and increase the means of communication between their peoples and to employ these means for the purposes of mutual understanding and a truer and more perfect knowledge of their lives”: and they
“hereby create the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation,” whose purpose is then specifically laid down as that of “‘advancing, through the educational and scientific and cultural relations of the peoples of the world, the objectives of international peace and of the common welfare of mankind, for which the United Nations Organisation was established and which its charter proclaims.”
In Article I of the Constitution the methods for realising these aims are broadly defined under three heads.
In the forefront is set Unesco’s collaboration in “the work of advancing the mutual knowledge and understanding of peoples, through all means of mass communication,” and in the obtaining of international agreements “ necessary to promote the free flow of ideas by word and image.”
Next is listed the giving of “fresh impulse to popular education and to the spread of culture.” Here there is asserted “the ideal of equality of educational opportunity without regard to race, sex or any distinctions, economic or social,” and the specific aim is included of suggesting “educational methods best suited to prepare the children of the world for the responsibilities of freedom.”
And finally we have the enormous scope of the third head, to “maintain, increase and diffuse knowledge.” The methods here listed are, first “the conservation and protection of the world’s inheritance of books, works of art and monuments of history and science”; secondly “co-operation among the nations in all branches of intellectual activity,” which is to include “the international exchange of persons active in the fields of education, science and culture,” and also “the exchange of publications, objects of artistic and scientific interest, and other materials of information”; and thirdly the initiation of “methods of international co-operation calculated to give the peoples of all countries access to the printed and published materials produced by any of them.”
These broad statements need amplification and occasionally clarification. Thus nothing is said as to whether co-operation between the nations in intellectual activities should go so far as the setting up of research or other institutions of truly international character, under Unesco’s aegis; and there is, perhaps, an under-emphasis on the artistic activities of man as against the intellectual, and on the creation of new works of art and literature as against the conservation of old ones. Such matters, however, can clearly be solved ambulando, and the clarification of detail will be provided as Unesco gets to grips with its concrete tasks.II. A PHILOSOPHY FOR UNESCOBut in order to carry out its work, an organisation such as Unesco needs not only a set of general aims and objects for itself, but also a working philosophy, a working hypothesis concerning human existence and its aims and objects, which will dictate, or at least indicate, a definite line of approach to its problems. Without such a general outlook and line of approach, Unesco will be in danger of undertaking piecemeal and even self-contradictory actions, and will in any case lack the guidance and inspiration which spring from a belief in a body of general principles.From acceptance of certain principles or philosophies, Unesco is obviously debarred. Thus, while fully recognising the contribution made to thought by many of their thinkers, it cannot base its outlook on one of the competing theologies of the world as against the others, whether Islam, Roman Catholicism, Protestant Christianity, Buddhism, Unitarianism, Judaism, or Hinduism. Neither can it espouse one of the politico-economic doctrines competing in the world to-day to the exclusion of the others -- the present versions of capitalistic free enterprise, Marxist communism, semi-socialist planning, and so on.
It cannot do so, partly because it is contrary to its charter and essence to be sectarian, partly for the very practical reason that any such attempt would immediately incur the active hostility of large and influential groups, and the non-cooperation or even withdrawal of a number of nations.For somewhat similar reasons it cannot base itself exclusively on any special or particular philosophy or outlook, whether
existentialism or
Elan vital, rationalism or
spiritualism, an economic-determinist or a rigid cyclical theory of human history. Nor, with its stress on democracy and the principles of human dignity, equality and mutual respect, can it adopt the view that
the State is a higher or more important end than the individual; or any rigid class theory of society. And in the preamble to its Constitution it expressly repudiates
racialism and any belief in superior or inferior “races,” nations, or ethnic groups.
And finally, with its stress on the concrete tasks of education, science and culture, on the need for mutual understanding by the peoples of the world, and on the objectives of peace and human welfare on this planet, it would seem debarred from an exclusively or primarily other-worldly outlook.
So much for what Unesco cannot or should not adopt in the way of philosophies or guiding principle. Now for the positive side. Its main concern is with peace and security and with human welfare, in so far as they can be subserved by the educational and scientific and cultural relations of the peoples of the world. Accordingly
its outlook must, it seems, be based on some form of humanism. Further, that humanism must clearly be a world humanism, both in the sense of seeking to bring in all the peoples of the world, and of treating all peoples and all individuals within each people as equals in terms of human dignity, mutual respect, and educational opportunity. It must also be a scientific humanism, in the sense that the application of science provides most of the material basis for human culture, and also that the practice and the understanding of science need to be integrated with that of other human activities. It cannot, however, be materialistic, but must embrace the spiritual and mental as well as the material aspects of existence, and must attempt to do so on a truly monistic, unitary philosophic basis.Finally it must be an evolutionary as opposed to a static or ideal humanism.
It is essential for Unesco to adopt an evolutionary approach. If it does not do so, its philosophy will be a false one, its humanism at best partial, at worst misleading. We will justify this assertion in detail later. Here it is only necessary to recall that in the last few decades it has been possible to develop an extended or general theory of
evolution which can provide the necessary intellectual scaffolding for modern humanism. It not only shows us man’s place in nature and his relations to the rest of the phenomenal universe, not only gives us a description of the various types of evolution and the various trends and directions within them, but
allows us to distinguish desirable and undesirable trends, and to demonstrate the existence of progress in the cosmos. And finally it shows us man as now the sole trustee of further evolutionary progress, and gives us important guidance as to the courses he should avoid and those he should pursue if he is to achieve that progress.An evolutionary approach provides the link between natural science and human history; it teaches us the need to think in the dynamic terms of speed and direction rather than in the static ones of momentary position or quantitative achievement; it not only shows us the origin and biological roots of our human values, but gives us some basis and external standards for them among the apparently neutral mass of natural phenomena; and it is indispensable in enabling us to pick out, among the chaotic welter of conflicting tendencies to-day, those trends and activities and methods which Unesco should emphasise and facilitate.
Thus the general philosophy of Unesco should, it seems, be a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background. What are the further implications, practical as well as theoretical, of such an outlook? We must examine these in some detail before coming down to a consideration of Unesco’s activity section by section.
III. UNESCO AND HUMAN PROGRESSOur first task must be to clarify the notion of desirable and undesirable directions of evolution, for on this will depend our attitude to human progress -- to the possibility of progress in the first place, and then to its definition. If the discussion at first seems academic and remote, yet it will speedily appear that it has the most direct bearing upon Unesco’s work.
Evolution in the broad sense denotes all the historical processes of change and development at work in the universe. It is divisible into three very different sectors -- the inorganic or lifeless, the organic or biological, and the social or human. The inorganic sector is by far the greatest in extent, comprising the overwhelming bulk of the cosmos, both of interstellar space and of the material aggregates we call stars. On the other hand, the methods by which change is brought about in this sector are almost entirely those of mere physical interaction, and the highest rate of evolution so slow as to be almost beyond our comprehension, the “life” of a star being of the appalling order of magnitude of 10[12] years.
The biological sector is very much limited in extent, being confined to the outer surface of the single small planet Earth, and perhaps to the very few similar situations in the universe. On the other hand,
with the emergence of the two basic properties of living matter -- self-reproduction and variation (mutation) -- a quite new and much more potent method of change became available to life, in the shape of Natural Selection. And as a result the possible rate of evolution was enormously speeded up. Thus the entire evolution of life, from its pre-cellular origins to man, took little more than 10[9] years, and quite large changes, such as the evolution of the fully specialised horses from their small and generalised ancestors, or that of the first true birds from reptiles, could be achieved in a period which is nearer to 10[7] than 10[8] years.
Finally there is the human sector. This is still further restricted in extent, being confined to the single species, man. But once more
a new and more efficient method of change is available. It becomes available to man through his distinctively human properties of speech and conceptual thought, just as Natural Selection became available to life as a result of its distinctive properties of reproduction and variation. Objectively speaking, the new method consists of cumulative tradition, which forms the basis of that social heredity by means of which human societies change and develop. But the new method also has a subjective aspect of great importance. Cumulative tradition, like all other distinctively human activities, is largely based on conscious processes -- on knowledge, on purpose, on conscious feeling, and on conscious choice. Thus
the struggle for existence that underlies natural selection is increasingly replaced by conscious selection, a struggle between ideas and values in consciousness.Through these new agencies, the possible rate of evolution is now once more enormously speeded up. What is more, there has so far been a steady acceleration of the new rate. Whereas in lower palaeolithic times, major change required something of the order of 10[6] years, by the late upper palaeolithic the unit was nearer 10[4] years, and in historic times soon came down to the century or 10[2] years; and during the last hundred years each decade has seen at least one major change -- if we are to choose ten such, let us select photography, the theory of evolution, electro-magnetic theory with its application in the shape of electric light and power, the germ theory of disease, the cinema, radioactivity and the new theories of matter and energy, wireless and television, the internal combustion engine, chemical synthetics, and atomic fission. To-day, indeed, even the most momentous changes, such as the discovery and practical application of atomic fission, may take only half a decade, and there is as yet no sign of the rate of acceleration slowing down.
Evolution in the human sector consists mainly of changes in the form of society; in tools and machines, in new ways of utilising the old innate potentialities, instead of in the nature of these potentialities, as in the biological sector. Man’s inherited mental powers cannot have changed appreciably since the time of the Aungriacian cave-dwellers: what have changed are the ways in which those powers are used, and the social framework which conditions their use. This is not to say that what has happened since the Aungriacian period or since the time of ancient Greece, is not evolution: it is a very astonishing bit of evolution. Nor does it mean that man’s innate mental powers could not be improved. They certainly were improved (presumably by natural selection) in the earliest stages of his career, from
Pekin man through the Neanderthalers to our own species;
and they could certainly be improved further by deliberate eugenic measures, if we consciously set ourselves to improve them. Meanwhile, however, it is in social organisation, in machines, and in ideas that human evolution is mostly made manifest.
These three sectors have succeeded each other in time. Perhaps the next fact that strikes one concerning the process as a whole is that the physical basis and the organisation of what evolves becomes more complex with time, both in the passage from one sector to the next, and within each sector. Most of the inorganic sector is composed of atoms or of the still simpler subatomic units, though here and there it attains the next higher level of molecule. Further in a few rare situations it must have reached the further stage of organic molecule (macro-molecule), which can comprise a much larger number and more complex arrangement of atoms, owing to the capacity of carbon atoms, in certain conditions, to combine with each other to form the framework of large molecules, having the shape of rings or chains or elaborate branched structures. It was from among organic molecules that the living or self-reproducing molecules of the biological sector were later evolved. These are far more elaborate, consisting of hundreds or possibly thousands of atoms. And their vast but still submicroscopic complexity provided the basis for an even greater visible elaboration. The complexity of the bodily structure of a bird or a mammal is almost inconceivable to anyone who has not systematically studied it. And this visible complexity has increased with time during biological evolution: a bird or a mammal is more complex than a fish, a fish much more complex than a worm, a worm than a polyp, a polyp than an amoeba, an amoeba than a virus. Finally, in the human sector, a new complexity is superimposed on the old, in the shape of man’s tools and machines and social organisation. And this, too, increases with time. The elaboration of a modern state, or of a machine-tool factory in it, is almost infinitely greater than that of a primitive tribe or the wooden and stone implements available to its inhabitants.
But it is not only complexity which increases with time. In the biological sector, evolution has led to greater control over the environment and greater independence of the changes and chances of the environment. It has also promoted a higher degree of individuality. And this trend is connected with another which has led to increase of mental powers -- greater capacities for acquiring and organising knowledge, for experiencing emotion, and for exerting purpose. This last trend, towards fuller knowledge, richer emotion, and more embracing purpose, is continued (though by different methods) in the human sector, and is continued at a much increased rate. But to it is superadded another trend -- an increase in the capacity to appreciate values, to appreciate experiences that are of value in their own right and for their own sake, to build on knowledge, to work through purpose, and to inject ethical values into the process of social evolution itself.
The ethical values may be limited and primitive, such as unquestioning loyalty to a tribe, or high and universal, like those which Jesus first introduced into the affairs of the world: the point is that only in the human sector do they become a part of the mechanism of change and evolution.
These broad trends are not universal. In the biological sector, for instance, stability may under certain conditions be the rule instead of change, or change may be restricted to the quite minor alterations involved in producing new species or genera of an already existing general type.
Even when broad trends exist, they need not be desirable from the long-term point of view. Thus most trends observed in life, like that seen in the horse or elephant stock, are only specialisations. These, after tens of millions of years of one-sided improvement for a particular way of life, lead inevitably to an evolutionary dead end, after which no further major change is possible. However, a few trends do occur which promote an all-round improvement of organisation, such as the evolution of early mammals from reptiles, or early man from mammals. These do not close the door on further major change, as was demonstrated by the large-scale evolution of mammals in the Tertiary, or of man’s societies since the Ice Age; they are thus the only changes which are, from the longest-range point of view, desirable, the only trends which deserve to be called progressive.In addition, we now know much about the methods of biological evolution: the existence of several quite different types of selection; the conditions which promote or retard change; the subordinate position of mutation as against selection in directing the course of evolution; the evolutionary roles of the degree of specialisation and of progress shown by an organism, of its biological environment, and of its physical environment respectively, and the interaction between them; the evolutionary conflict between the limitations set by an organism’s nature and past history and the requirements of the present, and its solution by means of some new adjustment -- or its lack of solution, followed by extinction.
This last point immediately recalls the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis of Hegelian philosophy, and the Marxist “reconciliation of opposites” based upon it. Indeed, dialectical materialism was the first radical attempt at an evolutionary philosophy. Unfortunately it was based too exclusively upon principles of social as against biological evolution, and in any case was undertaken too early, before either the facts or their analysis were adequate to support any such vast superstructure. To-day it is possible at least to begin the construction of a comprehensive philosophy of evolution; and many of its conclusions will be of value in formulating details of Unesco’s own philosophy. For the moment, however,
we have no space to discuss any except the one key principle of evolutionary progress.For it is of major importance that biology has enabled us to detect a direction in evolution as a whole, and not merely within the small domain of human life, to which the term progress can properly be applied.
This evolutionary progress, we find, is directed towards an increase of the following characteristics. Throughout evolution, an increase in complexity of organisation; on this, in the biological and human sectors, is superposed a more important trend towards greater control over and greater independence of the environment, and, in later phases, one towards an increase of mental capacities; and finally, in the human sector alone, an increase in the understanding and attainment of intrinsic values, which now in its turn becomes the most important characteristic of progress. Throughout, progress has the further characteristic of always permitting further progress, never shutting the door on later advance.Of special importance in man’s evaluation of his own position in the cosmic scheme and of his further destiny is the fact that he is the heir, and indeed the sole heir, of evolutionary progress to date. When he asserts that he is the highest type of organism, he is not being guilty of anthropocentric vanity, but is enunciating a biological fact. Furthermore, he is not merely the sole heir of past evolutionary progress, but the sole trustee for any that may be achieved in the future.
From the evolutionary point of view, the destiny of man may be summed up very simply: it is to realise the maximum progress in the minimum time. That is why the philosophy of Unesco must have an evolutionary background, and why the concept of progress cannot but occupy a central position in that philosophy.The analysis of evolutionary progress gives us certain criteria for judging the rightness or wrongness of our aims and activities, and the desirability or otherwise of the tendencies to be noted in contemporary history -- tendencies of which Unesco must take account.
Thus mere increase of our control over nature is not to be valued for itself, yet appears to be a necessary foundation for future progress. Put in a way more closely affecting Unesco’s programme, research may be perverted, and its material applications may be over-valued; yet without them we shall not advance. This conclusion applies a fortiori to mere complexity of social organisation.
Again, even knowledge that appears to be wholly beneficent can be applied in such a way that it does not promote progress. Thus, the application of medical science may increase the number of human beings in a given area but lower their quality or their opportunities for enjoyment of life: and if so, in the light of our basic criterion of evolutionary direction, it is wrong. We are brought by a new route to realise once more the need for a Unesco policy balanced between many fields -- in this instance, Unesco policy would have to include, besides the application of medical science, studies on agricultural productivity (soil erosion, mechanisation, etc.) and on social welfare, and also the provision of birth-control facilities.
In general, Unesco must constantly be testing its policies against the touchstone of evolutionary progress. A central conflict of our times is that between nationalism and internationalism, between the concept of many national sovereignties and one world sovereignty. Here the evolutionary touchstone gives an unequivocal answer. The key to man’s advance, the distinctive method which has made evolutionary progress in the human sector so much more rapid than in the biological and has given it higher and more satisfying goals, is the fact of cumulative tradition, the existence of a common pool of ideas which is self-perpetuating and itself capable of evolving. And this fact has had the immediate consequence of making the type of social organisation the main factor in human progress or at least its limiting framework.
Two obvious corollaries follow. First, that
the more united man’s tradition becomes, the more rapid will be the possibility of progress: several separate or competing or even mutually hostile pools of tradition cannot possibly be so efficient as a single pool common to all mankind. And secondly, that the best and only certain way of securing this will be through political unification. As history shows, unifying ideas can exert an effect across national boundaries. But, as history makes equally evident, that effect is a partial one and never wholly offsets the opportunities for conflict provided by the existence of separate sovereign political units.
The moral for Unesco is clear. The task laid upon it of promoting peace and security can never be wholly realised through the means assigned to it -- education, science and culture. It must envisage some form of world political unity, whether through a single world government or otherwise; & the only certain means for avoiding war. However, world political unity is, unfortunately, a remote ideal, and in any case does not fall within the field of Unesco’s competence. This does not mean that Unesco cannot do a great deal towards promoting peace and security. Specifically,
in its educational programme it can stress the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarise all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organisation. But, more generally, it can do a great deal to lay the foundations on which world political unity can later be built. It can help the peoples of the world to mutual understanding and to a realisation of the common humanity and common tasks which they share, as opposed to the nationalisms which too often tend to isolate and separate them.It can promote enterprises which, by being fully international from the outset, demonstrate that nationality and nationalism can be transcended in shared activity. Examples of such enterprises are the Unesco Centre of Applied Mathematics proposed in the Natural Science Chapter dealing with the International Reconstruction Camps, proposed in the Education Chapter as a contribution to reconstruction, the activities centred round the World Bibliographical and Library Centre and the International Clearing House for Publications proposed in the section dealing with libraries, the International Home and Community Planning Institute envisaged in the Chapter on Social Science, the International Theatre Institute proposed in that on the Creative Arts, and the production of internationally-conceived films and radio programmes envisaged in the Chapter on Mass Media.
Unesco also can and should promote the growth of international contacts, international organisations, and actual international achievements, which will offer increasing resistance to the forces making for division and conflict. In particular, it can both on its own account and in close relation with other U.N. agencies such as the F.A.O. and the World Health Organisation, promote the international application of science to human welfare. As the benefits of such world-scale collaboration become plain (which will speedily be the case in relation to the food and health of mankind) it will become increasingly more difficult for any nation to destroy them by resorting to isolationism or to war.
In the specific cases of atomic fission, bacteriology and microbiology, Unesco can do a great deal by
large-scale campaigns of public education designed to throw into contrast the disastrous effects of using our knowledge for new warlike purposes, in the shape of atom bombs and the still greater horrors of “biological warfare,” and the wonderful opportunities that open out if we use it for increasing human welfare -- by making new sources of energy available to mankind in general and to certain backward regions in particular, and by harnessing micro-organisms as the chemical servants of man, as well as by banishing germ-caused disease. And since practical demonstration is the best form of education, Unesco should stimulate to the utmost extent the application of nuclear physics and of microbiology to peaceful ends.
With all this Unesco must face the fact that nationalism is still the basis of the political structure of the world, and must be prepared for the possibility that the forces of disruption and conflict may score a temporary victory. But even if this should occur, Unesco must strain every nerve to give a demonstration of the benefits, spiritual as well as material, to be obtained through a common pool of tradition, and specifically by international cooperation in education, science, and culture, so that even should another war break out, Unesco may survive it, and in any case so that the world will not forget.
QUALITY AND QUANTITYThere is one other general implication of the fact of evolutionary progress, which Unesco must take into account -- the importance of quality as against quantity. Throughout evolution, progress has consisted in the raising of the upper level of certain properties of the “world stuff” of which we, as well as the stars, are made. And in the human sector, progress has been increasingly concerned with values -- intellectual, aesthetic, emotional and moral. In the realm of values, quantity, whether in regard to number, size or extension, is irrelevant to progress. The bulk of the inorganic sector of the universe is almost infinitely greater than that of the biological sector: yet it is in the latter alone that material organisation has revealed its astonishing possibilities. Again, there are over a million separate species of plants and animals as against one in the human sector; but this single species
Man is the only one in which evolution has produced the full flowering of mind and spirit.Unesco must guard itself against the tendency, current in some quarters, of reducing everything to quantitative terms, as if a counting of heads were more important than what was going on inside them. This tendency to think only or mainly in terms of quantity is partly a reflection of our mass-production age, but partly due to the debasement or misconception of the principles of democracy, in rather the same way as militaristic nationalism has been founded on a misconception of Darwinian principles.
The Age of the Common Man: the Voice of the People: majority rule: the importance of a large population: -- ideas and slogans such as these form the background of much of our thinking, and tend, unless we are careful, towards the promotion of mediocrity, even if mediocrity in abundance, and at the same time, towards the discouragement of high and unusual quality.
Let Unesco have a clear mind on this subject. Quantity is of importance -- but as a means, a foundation for quality. It is true that one could not carry on a high modern civilisation in a population the size of a bushman tribe, any more than life could evolve the mental powers of a higher mammal in an organism the size of an amoeba. There is, however, an optimum range of size for every human organisation as for every type of organism.
A land animal ten times the weight of an elephant would be biologically extremely inefficient, just as a committee of two hundred members would be socially extremely inefficient. Similarly, there is an optimum range of human population density, and of total population in the world.Meanwhile,
Unesco must devote itself not only to raising the general welfare of the common man, but also to raising the highest level attainable by man. This applies to the opportunities of experience and enjoyment generally available, to the quality of training provided and to the human material itself. Human progress consists partly in the raising of the average level within pre-existing limits of achievement and possibility, but also in raising the upper level of these limits and embarking man upon new possibilities.
The encouragement of variety of genius, of quality in general, however incomprehensible to the multitude, must be one of the major aims of Unesco.
The methods of realising this aim demand the most careful study.
The first pre-requisite is to make the world realise that proper social organisation can be made to promote, and is indeed the only adequate means of promoting, both the degree and the variety of individuation among the members of society. In the present phase of history, the tendency has been to regard efficiency of social organisation and high degree of individuality as an inevitable opposition.
At one extreme we have the exaggerated individualism, found mostly in the U.S.A., which still looks on “government” and all organisation of society as somehow inimical to the people as individuals. At the other extreme we have the philosophy of Fascism, in which the State is regarded as embodying the highest values, and any undue development of the individual is suppressed as inimical to the State. However, this apparent contradiction is a false one, and the “opposites” of society and the individual can be reconciled. Though that reconciliation will not be easy, it is, with the prevention of war, the most important task now before existing humanity.SOME GENERAL PRINCIPLESAgainst this background, our scientific humanism can pick out certain general principles which will be useful as general encouragements or detailed guides to Unesco in pursuing the broad aims laid down for it.
In the first place, our evolutionary analysis shows clearly enough that a well-developed human individual is the highest product of evolution to date. This provides external and scientific support for the democratic principle of the dignity of men, to which by its Constitution Unesco is committed. It also constitutes a complete disproof of all theses, like those of
Hegelian philosophy, of Fascism, or of Nazism, which maintain that the State is in some way higher than the individual, and that the individual exists only or primarily for the State.On the other hand, we have been brought to realise that
the evolution of man, though a natural continuation of that of the rest of life, is quite a different process, operating by the essentially social method of cumulative tradition, and manifesting itself primarily in the development of societies, instead of in the genetic nature of the individuals composing them. And this at once makes it equally obvious that the opposed thesis of unrestricted individualism is equally erroneous. The human individual is, quite strictly, meaningless in isolation; he only acquires significance in relation to some form of society. His development is conditioned by the society into which he is born and the social traditions which he inherits; and the value of the work he does in life depends on the social framework which benefits by it or transmits it to later time.Thus Unesco’s activities, while concerned primarily with providing richer development and fuller satisfactions for the individual, must always be undertaken in a social context; and many of its specific tasks will be concerned with the social means towards this general end -- the improvement of social mechanisms or agencies, such as educational systems, research organisations, art centres, the press, and so forth. In particular, Unesco must clearly pay special attention to the social mechanism of cumulative tradition in all its aspects, with the aim of ensuring that it is both efficient and rightly directed in regard to its essential function of promoting human evolution.
As we have seen earlier,
the unifying of traditions in a single common pool of experience, awareness, and purpose is the necessary prerequisite for further major progress in human evolution. Accordingly, although political unification in some sort of world government will be required for the definitive attainment of this stage, unification in the things of the mind is not only also necessary but can pave the way for other types of unification. Thus in the past the great religions unified the thoughts and attitudes of large regions of the earth’s surface; and in recent times science, both directly through its ideas and indirectly through its applications in shrinking the globe, has been a powerful factor in directing men’s thoughts to the possibilities of, and the need for, full world unity.
Special attention should consequently be given by Unesco to the problem of constructing a unified pool of tradition for the human species as a whole. This, as indicated elsewhere, must include the
unity-in-variety of the world’s art and culture as well as the promotion of one single pool of scientific knowledge.
But it must also eventually include a unified common outlook and a common set of purposes. This will be the latest part of the task of unifying the world mind; but Unesco must not neglect it while engaged on the easier jobs, like that of promoting a single pool of scientific knowledge and effort.
From this global aim, another principle immediately follows. It is that Unesco should devote special attention to the levelling up of educational, scientific and cultural facilities in all backward sectors where these are below the average, whether these be geographical regions, or under-privileged sections of a population. To use another metaphor, it must attempt to let in light on the world’s dark areas.
The reason for this is plain. For one thing
it will be impossible for humanity to acquire a common outlook if large sections of it are the illiterate inhabitants of a mental world entirely different from that in which a fully educated man can have his being, a world of superstition and petty tribalism in place of one of scientific advance and possible unity. Thus mass campaigns against illiteracy and for a common fundamental education must form part of Unesco’s programme. Further, a satisfactory common scale of values can obviously not be attained so long as large sections of mankind are preoccupied with the bare material and physiological needs of food, shelter, and health.
Again, science will not achieve its optimum rate of advance, either in research or in its application, until its light is more evenly shed over the dark surface of the world’s ignorance, so as to provide a more equable distribution of scientists, of apparatus, and (equally important in the long run) of popular understanding of science.
With art and the appreciation of beauty, much of the “dark area” is differently situated -- in the centres of industry and among the proletariat of industrially advanced sections. But the task of lightening the dark spots in this field is no less urgent than in education or in science.
Furthermore,
social mechanisms must be constructed in the right way if they are to provide the basis for realising the right values and for providing individuals with the fullest opportunities and satisfactions. An educational system, for instance, can just as readily be made to promote the idea of a chosen race or of a privileged caste as it can that of the dignity of men and the equality of their opportunity. A scientific system can be based on secrecy and focussed on war or on economic rivalry: or it can be focussed on increasing human knowledge and human welfare, and founded on freedom. A mass-production system can indirectly destroy creative initiative and aesthetic appreciation, and lead to apathy or escapism, as readily as it can be made to function directly to produce for real human needs.
Thus broad studies of various social mechanisms and their effects, conducted in the light of some general philosophy, will necessarily form part of Unesco’s programme. One such item, which has been given a high priority, is that of the effects of mechanisation on civilisation.
THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY AND THE FACT OF INEQUALITYFinally we come to a difficult problem -- that of discovering how we can reconcile our principle of human equality with the biological fact of human inequality. Perhaps the problem is not so difficult as it appears when stated in this paradoxical form; for the contradiction largely disappears as soon as it is realised that equality is used in two very different senses. The democratic principle of equality, which is also Unesco’s, is a principle of equality of opportunity -- that human beings should be equal before the law, should have equal opportunities for education, for making a living, for freedom of expression and movement and thought.
The biological absence of equality, on the other hand, concerns the natural endowments of man and the fact of genetic difference in regard to them.There are instances of biological inequality which are so gross that they cannot be reconciled at all with the principle of equal opportunity. Thus low-grade mental defectives cannot be offered equality of educational opportunity, nor are the insane equal with the sane before the law or in respect of most freedoms. However, the full implications of the fact of human inequality have not often been drawn and certainly need to be brought out here, as they are very relevant to Unesco’s task.
At the outset,
let it be clearly understood that we are here speaking only of biological inequality -- inequality in genetic endowment. Social inequality, due to accident of birth or upbringing, is something wholly different.Concretely, genetic human inequality is of two types. First, there is the inequality of mere difference. Some people are fair, others dark; some are tall and thin, others short and stocky; some have a natural gift for music, others for athletics; some are introspective, others practical and extrovert. Indeed, we can now definitely state that no two human beings, with the single exception of the members of pairs of identical twins, are biologically equal in the sense of possessing the same genetic constitution, so that biological difference is, for all practical purposes, universal. Furthermore, the range and degree of genetic variety in man is greater than that to be found in any other animal species. This is largely due to one of man’s biological peculiarities, namely that his local differentiation into races is not continued to the stage of separate and intersterile species, as in almost all other organisms, but has always been followed by migration and interbreeding. But whatever its cause, the resultant high degree of variability is a fact, and one of considerable evolutionary importance.
Secondly, there is difference in quality or level.
Human beings are not equal in respect of various desirable qualities. Some are strong, others weak; some healthy, others chronic invalids; some long-lived, others short-lived; some bright, others dull; some of high, others of low intelligence; some mathematically gifted, others very much the reverse; some kind and good, others cruel and selfish.It is usually not so easy to say how much of this second sort of inequality is due to heredity and therefore relevant for our purpose, how much only to the effects of physical or social environment. But in most cases we now know, and in almost all can be reasonably sure, that
some at least of the difference is genetic. This is certain, for instance, of length of life, physical strength, and, most important for our purpose, for intellectual gifts -- both special ones like mathematical aptitude and general ones like intelligence; while it is highly probable for some aspects of moral qualities, though the situation here is more complex.
It is therefore of the greatest importance to preserve human variety; all attempts at reducing it, whether by attempting to obtain greater “purity” and therefore uniformity within a so-called race or a national group, or by attempting to exterminate any of the broad racial groups which give our species its major variety, are scientifically incorrect and opposed to long-run human progress. On the contrary, Unesco should aim at securing the fullest contribution to the common pool from racial groups which, owing to their remoteness or their backwardness, have so far had little share in it. While the social difficulties caused by wide racial crossing may be too great to permit the deliberate large-scale use of it as a means of still further increasing the extent of human genetic variability, we must assuredly make the best use of the variability which already exists.
The fact of human difference has another implication for Unesco.
Every encouragement should be given to the study of distinct psycho-physical types. Such work has been begun by men like Kretschmer, Draper and Sheldon, but needs to be pushed much further before secure generalisations can be drawn from it. When the time comes, however, they will be important. For one thing they will be of great value in job selection, in picking those who are most likely to profit from a particular sort of training or are most suitable for a particular kind of work. Conversely, we shall then be enabled to lay down that certain types of men should be debarred from holding certain types of positions.Already considerable progress has been made, though largely on an empirical basis as yet, in fitting the right man to the right job -- notably by the Selection Boards for officers which were set up during the late war.
Still more important, any such generalisations will give us a deeper understanding of the variations of human nature, and in doing so will enable us correctly to discount the ideas of men of this or that type. Thus it already seems clear that fanatics and overzealous doctrinaire moralists are generally of the general type christened asthenic by Kretschmer: and
the time will doubtless come when we shall be able to be more precise and say that a particular sub-type of asthenic is definitely prone to over-rigid moralising, depending on an exaggerated guilt-complex combined with a tendency to introversion, and therefore that men of this type should not be allowed to do what they are likely to be itching for, namely to be arbiters of morals or, in any way responsible for the punishment of offenders. We may, perhaps, also look forward to correlating some recognisable variety of Kretschmer’s pyknic type with a pedestrian form of practical extroversion; and if so should beware of allowing such men to be promoted from routine administration (at which they are likely to be good) to positions where imagination and intellectual generalisation are required.
There remains the second type of inequality. This has quite other implications; for, whereas variety is in itself desirable,
the existence of weaklings, fools, and moral deficients cannot but be bad. It is also much harder to reconcile politically with the current democratic doctrine of equality. In face of it, indeed, the principle of equality of opportunity must be amended to read equality of opportunity within the limits of aptitude.” Thus it is a fact, however disagreeable, that a considerable percentage of the population is not capable of profiting from higher education; to this point we shall return later. It is equally a fact that a considerable percentage of young men have to be rejected for military service on grounds of physical weakness or mental instability, and that these grounds are often genetic in origin. Again,
many people are not intelligent or not scrupulous enough to be entrusted with political responsibility -- a fact which unfortunately does not prevent quite a number of them from attaining it.
To adjust the principle of democratic equality to the fact of biological inequality is a major task for the world, and one which will grow increasingly more urgent as we make progress towards realising equality of opportunity. To promote this adjustment, a great deal of education of the general public will be needed as well as much new research; and in both these tasks Unesco can and should co-operate.
This does not mean, of course, that Unesco should aim at labelling, docketing, or dragooning humanity. It means that
it should encourage all studies and all methods which can be used to ensure that men find the right jobs and are kept away from the wrong jobs -- to ensure that individuals find outlets satisfying to their temperament, and work appropriate to their talents, while at the same time ensuring that society is not overburdened with people in positions for which they are inadequate or, still worse, which they are likely to abuse.Biological inequality is, of course, the bedrock fact on which all of eugenics is predicated. But it is not usually realised that the two types of inequality have quite different and indeed contrary eugenic implications. The inequality of mere difference is desirable, and the preservation of human variety should be one of the two primary aims of eugenics. But the inequality of level or standard is undesirable, and the other primary aim of eugenics should be the raising of the mean level of all desirable qualities.
While there may be dispute over certain qualities, there can be none over a number of the most important, such as a healthy constitution, a high innate general intelligence, or a special aptitude such as that for mathematics or music.At the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilisation is dysgenic instead of eugenic; and in any case
it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for Unesco to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.
But, although one of the tasks before Unesco is the clearing of its own mind on fundamental issues, it has before it a concrete and immediate job of work in a number of fields. The next chapter will be devoted to a general consideration of these fields of activity, and the principles which should guide Unesco in its approach to work in them.