Civilised Man?

What effect has modern civilisation made on its denizens (that’s us) for good or ill?  There must have been some progress, some shifting from barbarism and bestiality to more ‘humane’ behaviour, surely?  Some softening from the necessarily ‘hard’ shell honed for survival in a hostile world?  Some growth and maturation of culture, appetites and outlooks in the herd as in the individual?  In the “…man affected by progress and European civilisation, a man who is “divorced from the soil and the national elements,” as they express it now-a-days.” – as described by Fyodor Dostoyevsky in his ‘Notes From The Underground’ novella from 1864.

Dostoyevsky was a man who thought long and hard about the human condition.  It was he who said, in private correspondence –

Man is a mystery. It needs to be unravelled, and if you spend your whole life unravelling it, don’t say that you’ve wasted time.  I am studying that mystery because I want to be a human being.

So, what does Dostoyevsky have to say about the impact of civilisation on mankind?  Here are some of his thoughts, again from ‘Notes From The Underground’.

I want to compromise myself personally, and therefore I boldly declare that all these fine systems, all these theories for explaining to mankind their real normal interests, in order that inevitably striving to pursue these interests they may at once become good and noble — are, in my opinion, so far, mere logical exercises!  Yes, logical exercises. Why, to maintain this theory of the regeneration of mankind by means of the pursuit of his own advantage is to my mind almost the same thing … as to affirm, for instance, … that through civilisation mankind becomes softer, and consequently less bloodthirsty and less fitted for warfare. … But man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic.  Only look about you: blood is being spilt in streams, and in the merriest way, as though it were champagne.  Take the whole of the nineteenth century … Take Napoleon — the Great and also the present one.  Take North America — the eternal union.  Take the farce of Schleswig-Holstein…. And what is it that civilisation softens in us?  The only gain of civilisation for mankind is the greater capacity for variety of sensations — and absolutely nothing more.  And through the development of this many-sidedness man may come to finding enjoyment in bloodshed.  In fact, this has already happened to him.  Have you noticed that it is the most civilised gentlemen who have been the subtlest slaughterers, … it is simply because they are so often met with, are so ordinary and have become so familiar to us. In any case civilisation has made mankind if not more bloodthirsty, at least more vilely, more loathsomely bloodthirsty.  In old days he saw justice in bloodshed and with his conscience at peace exterminated those he thought proper.  Now we do think bloodshed abominable and yet we engage in this abomination, and with more energy than ever.  Which is worse?  Decide that for yourselves.

You will say that that was in the comparatively barbarous times; … that though man has now learned to see more clearly than in barbarous ages, he is still far from having learnt to act as reason and science would dictate.  But yet you are fully convinced that he will be sure to learn when he gets rid of certain old bad habits, and when common sense and science have completely re-educated human nature and turned it in a normal direction.  You are confident that then man will cease from INTENTIONAL error and will, so to say, be compelled not to want to set his will against his normal interests.  That is not all; then, you say, science itself will teach man (though to my mind it’s a superfluous luxury) that he never has really had any caprice or will of his own, … so that everything he does is not done by his willing it, but is done of itself, by the laws of nature.  Consequently we have only to discover these laws of nature, and man will no longer have to answer for his actions and life will become exceedingly easy for him.

And then, rather presciently looking forward to our times, controlled by computers and gadgets, he says:

Then — this is all what you say — new economic relations will be established, all ready-made and worked out with mathematical exactitude, so that every possible question will vanish in the twinkling of an eye, simply because every possible answer to it will be provided.  Then the “Palace of Crystal” will be built.  Then … In fact, those will be halcyon days. Of course there is no guaranteeing (this is my comment) that it will not be, for instance, frightfully dull then (for what will one have to do when everything will be calculated and tabulated), but on the other hand everything will be extraordinarily rational. Of course boredom may lead you to anything.

Man is stupid, you know, phenomenally stupid; or rather he is not at all stupid, but he is so ungrateful that you could not find another like him in all creation.  I, for instance, would not be in the least surprised if all of a sudden, APROPOS of nothing, in the midst of general prosperity a gentleman with an ignoble, or rather with a reactionary and ironical, countenance were to arise and, putting his arms akimbo, say to us all: “I say, gentleman, hadn’t we better kick over the whole show and scatter rationalism to the winds, simply to send these logarithms to the devil, and to enable us to live once more at our own sweet foolish will!”  That again would not matter, but what is annoying is that he would be sure to find followers — such is the nature of man.  And all that for the most foolish reason, which, one would think, was hardly worth mentioning: that is, that man everywhere and at all times, whoever he may be, has preferred to act as he chose and not in the least as his reason and advantage dictated.

Finally, in conversation with a German General, and I think this is absolutely brilliant and so apt for today.  By the way, in case you don’t see it, ‘Fater’ is the German ‘Vater’ – Father, head of house.

I can tell you that what I have seen and verified makes my Tartar blood boil. Good Lord! I wish for no virtues of that kind.  Yesterday I went for a walk of about ten versts; and, everywhere I found that things were even as we read of them in good German picture-books — that every house has its ‘Fater,’ who is horribly beneficent and extraordinarily honourable.  So honourable is he that it is dreadful to have anything to do with him; and I cannot bear people of that sort.  Each such ‘Fater’ has his family, and in the evenings they read improving books aloud.  Over their roof-trees there murmur elms and chestnuts; the sun has sunk to his rest; a stork is roosting on the gable; and all is beautifully poetic and touching.  Do not be angry, General. Let me tell you something that is even more touching than that.  I can remember how, of an evening, my own father, now dead, used to sit under the lime trees in his little garden, and to read books aloud to myself and my mother.  Yes, I know how things ought to be done.  Yet every German family is bound to slavery and to submission to its ‘Fater.’ They work like oxen, and amass wealth like Jews.  Suppose the ‘Fater’ has put by a certain number of gulden which he hands over to his eldest son, in order that the said son may acquire a trade or a small plot of land.  Well, one result is to deprive the daughter of a dowry, and so leave her among the unwedded.  For the same reason, the parents will have to sell the younger son into bondage or the ranks of the army, in order that he may earn more towards the family capital.  Yes, such things ARE done, for I have been making inquiries on the subject.  It is all done out of sheer rectitude — out of a rectitude which is magnified to the point of the younger son believing that he has been RIGHTLY sold, and that it is simply idyllic for the victim to rejoice when he is made over into pledge.  What more have I to tell?  Well, this — that matters bear just as hardly upon the eldest son.  Perhaps he has his Gretchen to whom his heart is bound; but he cannot marry her, for the reason that he has not yet amassed sufficient gulden.  So, the pair wait on in a mood of sincere and virtuous expectation, and smilingly deposit themselves in pawn the while.  Gretchen’s cheeks grow sunken, and she begins to wither; until at last, after some twenty years, their substance has multiplied, and sufficient gulden have been honourably and virtuously accumulated. Then the ‘Fater’ blesses his forty-year-old heir and the thirty-five-year-old Gretchen with the sunken bosom and the scarlet nose; after which he bursts, into tears, reads the pair a lesson on morality, and dies. In turn the eldest son becomes a virtuous ‘Fater,’ and the old story begins again.  In fifty or sixty years’ time the grandson of the original ‘Fater’ will have amassed a considerable sum; and that sum he will hand over to, his son, and the latter to HIS son, and so on for several generations; until at length there will issue a Baron Rothschild, or a ‘Hoppe and Company,’ or the devil knows what!  Is it not a beautiful spectacle — the spectacle of a century or two of inherited labour, patience, intellect, rectitude, character, perseverance, and calculation, with a stork sitting on the roof above it all?  What is more; they think there can never be anything better than this; wherefore, from their point of view they begin to judge the rest of the world, and to censure all who are at fault — that is to say, who are not exactly like themselves.  Yes, there you have it in a nutshell. For my own part, I would rather grow fat after the Russian manner, or squander my whole substance at roulette. I have no wish to be ‘Hoppe and Company’ at the end of five generations.  I want the money for MYSELF, for in no way do I look upon my personality as necessary to, or meet to be given over to, capital. I may be wrong, but there you have it.  Those are MY views.”“

Hope you enjoyed that as much as I did.