World Affairs Institute

SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT ENDURING PEACEAuthor(s): THEODORE STANFIELDSource: Advocate of Peace through Justice, Vol. 82, No. 3 (MARCH, 1920), pp. 91-93Published by: World Affairs InstituteStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20659303 .

Accessed: 14/05/2014 04:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

World Affairs Institute and Heldref Publications are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Advocate of Peace through Justice.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.139 on Wed, 14 May 2014 04:51:29 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1920 ADVOCATE OF PEACE 91

We need more attention to the culture of the democratic

spirit, the study of the principles of democratic govern ment, and of the special guaranties of our representative system.

THE VISION OF THE ETERNAL

And in teaching the principles of democracy, it must never be overlooked that while democracy implies the rule of the majority the success of the great experiment will depend on the self-restraint alike of individuals and

majorities. It is our peculiar fortune as a people that we have guaranteed to the helpless individual, in the most hopeless minority, the exercise of certain unalien able rights, and have erected tribunals, whose duty it is to sustain them. But it must never be forgotten that this

willingness to recognize the essential rights of individ uals' this capacity for self-restraint, is nurtured not

merely by education, but by the precepts of religion. It is significant that in the most recent declaration of pur pose to overturn the Government of the United States the conspirators have declared their hatred of religion. The perpetuity of democracy depends on the sentiment of brotherhood, and finds its strong support in the faith which inspires a sweet reasonableness and the love of service. It is the endeavor to understand each other, to

help each other, to brighten the lives of our fellows, to succor the distressed, to give courage to the faint

hearted, to raise the fallen, to bind up the wounds of those who have suffered from disease and vice that mani fests the democratic spirit. And that spirit is essen

tially the religious spirit. A community without re

ligious faith is doomed to materialism and the bitter warfare of class selfishness. There can be no peace in

society without the vision of the Eternal.

SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT ENDURING PEACE

By THEODORE STANFIELD

O

NCE again mankind longs for enduring peace and

sadly recognizes that it is not in sight. All are

agreed that no proposal that insures a lasting peace and

justifies disarmament has been forthcoming from any quarter. What are we going to do about it?

For centuries the subject has been studied and sev eral attempts to establish peace for all time have been

made. All have failed. "Grim-visaged war" is still our curse.

Why has the preventive of war not been found? Have

previous studies and attempts been conducted by scien tific methods? Has history, which is a record of almost continuous warfare, been subjected to such methods of

inquiry? Has the problem been approached objectively or subjectively? Do we understand how it can be that

humanity has advanced coincident' with war? Have

previous attempts to prevent war been directed at its

primary causes, its secondary causes, or its manifesta tions? What is the primary cause of war?

In Immanuel Kant's writings the primary cause of war is illuminatingly treated. His views can perhaps be best presented in brief by quoting the following from

Dwight W. Morrow's book, "The Society of Free States":

"Man, unlike the other animals, is endowed with reason.

He does not, however, act always in accordance with his

reason. Rather are his acts fitful, sometimes guided by rea

son, sometimes by instinct. We must believe, however, that

all the capacities which Nature has implanted in any crea

ture are destined to unfold themselves if sufficient time be

allowed. And this must be true of man's natural capacity to use his reason, which will be fully developed if we allow

sufficient time.

"But man's reason develops only by its constant exercise ;

by failures and successes it gradually advances from one

stage of insight to another. No man within the short span of life allotted him can get enough experiments with his

reason to enable him to live completely in accordance with

that high faculty. To live rationally, however, is always his goal, and he may hope to make such progress that his

children may start from a higher level than that from

which he started. Thus, the goal which, for lack of experi

ence, he himself can never attain, the race to which he be

longs may ultimately reach. And by the quality of his own

life he may advance the species toward that ultimate goal. "It seems as if Nature had intended, not that man should

have an agreeable life, but a hard life. Nature, having en

dowed man with reason, left him without the natural

weapons which are part of the equipment of the animals

that act by instinct. Man must invent his own covering, his own shelter, his own means of security. He must strug

gle from the greatest crudeness of life to his highest capa bilities and to internal perfection in his habit of thought.

Moreover, he must continue the struggle, though the weary toil be for the sake of those who come after him, that they

may live in the dwelling upon which he and his long line of forefathers have labored.

"The two great human qualities which drive the indi

vidual forward in this self-culture are the social instinct

and the self-assertive instinct. Man has a strong inclina

tion to associate himself with his fellows. He has, how

ever, also a strong inclination to individualize himself-to

outstrip his fellows. He expects others to resist him, just as he knows that he is inclined to resist others. And this

mutual antagonism awakens the powers of man, overcomes

his propensity to indolence, impels him through desire for

honor, or power, or wealth, to strive after rank among his

fellow-men. His desire for possession, his envious jealousy and vanity, even his love of power, are the qualities which

have lifted him from the simplicity of an Arcadian shepherd life. Man is social and desires concord, but man is com

petitive and is driven to strife. He desires to live in peace with his fellows, and he fights with his fellows in order that

he may have peace. "But it is impossible for men long to exist beside one

another in wild, lawless freedom. By the very evils in

volved in lawless liberty man is compelled (not necessarily consciously) to pass from a state of lawlessness and to enter into a civil constitution in which the germs of his humanity can be unfolded. The greatest practical problem for the human race is, therefore, the establishment of a civil society universally a,dministering right in accordance With law. This requires a society which permits the great est liberty, and to that extent involves antagonism of its members, and a society which at the same time determines the limits of individual liberty in order that it may coexist with the liberty of others. The attainment of a civil con stitution in which liberty and order would be perfectly

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.139 on Wed, 14 May 2014 04:51:29 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

92 ADVOCATE OF PEACE March

adjusted is the highest problem prescribed by Nature for the human species. It is likewise the most difficult prob lem and will be the last to be completely solved by the human race. For, as a rational being, man desires a law

which shall fix the bounds of his freedom; as a selfish animal, he disregards that law or attempts to exempt him

self from it. How is he to be governed? His ruler may be

one man, or a group of men, or the whole body of the State

of which he is a member ; but whether he is governed by an autocracy, or an aristocracy, or a democracy, in any case

the governor is human and, like himself, is governed by

instinct as well as by reason. The highest authority must be just and at the same time human. Begin and end where

he may, therefore, it is not easy to see how man can place over himself any supreme authority that will be entirely

just, whether that authority be one person or the whole

society of the State. Until man himself fully exercises his

capacity to reason, the world-old question will continue to

be asked, 'Who is to govern the governor?'

"The establishment of the perfect civil constitution of a

single State is dependent upon the proper regulation of the

external relations between States, and without the solution

of the external problem the internal problem cannot be

solved. It is obvious that a State cannot administer right in accordance with law, however perfect its constitution, if

it is interrupted by the acts of other States. States, like

individuals, are both social and unsocial. They desire rela

tionships with their neighbors and they desire to excel and

surpass their neighbors. Through wars, and the never

relaxed preparation for wars, and the burden of debt and

devastation left by war, separate States will be driven into

unions. And in this process Nature does not and cannot

hurry. If too soon all the States should be fused into a

single State by the force of one power that had overgrown

the rest and subjected them to its sway, the evils of despot ism would ensue, the laws would lose their definiteness and

fairness of application as the range of government became

enlarged, and despotism would end in anarchy. But Nature,

by differences of language and religion, works to keep men

from forming the universal State too soon. As civilization

increases, as men become more and more alike in principles and get more and more of an understanding of one another

and of their differences, the final federation of States will

be developed."

Must mankind patiently wait and suffer until reason

reigns supreme ? Must the human being remain passive like vegetables and animals? Should he not use his consciousness and intelligence to organize all the powers and learning of mankind to find and establish the coin mon bond of all human beings and make a continuous effort to create enduring peace ? Why should not the nations, their universities, and men generally co-operate to solve these questions?

The material for study being the history of mankind, they would naturally turn to historians for the general principles which have been found to govern human ad vancement. Unfortunately, history is still an art- and not yet a science. However, modern historians realize that history should and can be developed into a science, just as, for instance, chemistry, geology, and astronomy have been. Professor Taggart, formerly Professor of History at the University of California, in a recent book entitled "The Processes of History," examines the pre

vious conceptions of history and suggests methods of scientific research to establish the processes of history.

Here we have, I think, a starting point for a rational

inquiry into the nature of war. He reaches the inter

esting hypothesis: "That human advancement follows upon the mental re

lease of members of a group or of a single individual from the authority of an established system of ideas. This re

lease has in the past been occasioned through the breaking down of previous idea systems by prolonged struggles be

tween opposing groups which have been brought into con

flict as a result of the involuntary movement of peoples. What follows is the building up of a new idea system which is not a simple accumulation of the knowledge previously

accepted, but the product of critical activity stirred by con

flicting elements in the opposed idea systems."

Here war appears as functioning for human advance ment, somewhat like a catalytic reagent, and the problem would be to find a better one.

Men come and go, nations rise and fall, and there remains progress in the form of ideas. Objectively re

garded, man lives to develop, improve, and increase the

heritage of ideas. This would apply to every human being, whether conscious thereof or not. All are on the same planet and no one knows either its first cause or ultimate end. Our common bond, whether we realize it or not, is that we all crave to solve this riddle of our universe. This bond will endure until the riddle is answered or human beings cease to exist on this earth.

Have not previous efforts been directed toward pre venting war and not toward establishing some relation ship among men that will counteract the causes of war?

Have previous efforts not dealt with the differences and disputes that arise, instead of the creation of some visible symbol of the solidarity of the human race that would

make such differences and disputes pale into relative insignificance? Have previous efforts built upon what draws men together, or what drives them apart?

To a philosopher visiting us from our sister planet, Mars, it might indeed appear miraculous that we puny creatures, not six feet high, on a sphere over forty-two

million feet in diameter, have discovered so much about our surroundings and the far-distant stars. But would he not be amazed to find that, with so much more of vital interest to learn, we should be given to killing one another instead of working together for the common end?

Would he not, perhaps, if urged, offer the suggestion, based upon the experience of the Martians, that we should form a "Society of Human Beings," with a per

manent center in, say, the United States, the home of all races, and there let. the common efforts of all men focus ? Furthermore, that all scientific, artistic, and social ideas should have their meeting-place there, so that men would become conscious of their common ob ject. Then they would work together toward that end and realize their comradeship in the great adventure of life on the planet Earth. Truth would sit in judgment, and the common aim would then be the incentive and motive of endeavor. Ideas, various and confficting, would meet for comparison, analysis, and discrimination. Might he not suggest that pure science should have its research establishment there, supported by all nations and encouraged by honors and prizes; applied science

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.139 on Wed, 14 May 2014 04:51:29 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1920 ADVOCATE OF PEACE 93

its laboratories and world-wide patent office; the schools and- universities their common home; art its incentives and rewards for creative efforts; the world's theater, concert and exhibition halls; there scholars, priests, and statesmen could meet. Our Martian philosopher might perhaps point out that the friendly contact and joint effort would lead human beings to appreciate and respect each other's differing talents as a valuable contribution to the same cause. Perchance he would remark upon the necessity of a common language at this center, and

upon our reply that repeated efforts to establish one had

utterly failed, he would naturally advise us to try Eng lish, because the majority of civilized people speak it, and the proceedings could, of course, be translated into all languages.

As beings supposedly superior to all others, let us not stake our existence on empirical experiment, but apply ourselves promptly and energetically to organize the world for a scientific and continuous research into the

problem of creating "peace on earth, good-will to men."

ENGLISH SHOULD BECOME THE UNI VEIRSAL LANGUAGE

By KNUT SANDSTEDT

The following communication, representing answers of various scientists to a questionnaire prepared and sent out by the Northern Peace Union, has been sent to us from Stockholm by Dr. Knut Sandstedt, of the Svenska Predoch Skiljedomsforeningen, Ref eringsgatan 74, Stockholm, C. THE EDIToRs.

T

HE Board of the Northern Peace Union, Stockholm, has set on foot an inquiry among the philologists of

the universities in different countries as to what lan guage, living or dead, would, in their opinion, be the best and have the greatest prospects of being accepted as a common language of correspondence and conserva tion, in addition to the vernacular of each separate nation.

Up to date, 34 answers have been sent in, and of these 26 correspondents have declared themselves against the artificial languages-Ido, Esperanto, Volapiik-and in stead expressed their opinion that English is the lan guage that has the greatest prospect of becoming an universal language. Two have proposed French, one German, one Latin, one Esperanto, and three Ido.

The professor of Sanscrit and comparative philology at the University of Lund, Sweden, Nils Flensburg, writes:

"For my part, I am fully convinced that, especially under present circumstances, English would be most appropriate and would have the best chances of being accepted as the international world language. It is spoken by the two na

tions, the English and the Americans, who now, after the Allied victory, will politically play a still more important role than before; it is also the language most generally used by the business world, and is, moreover, the most prevalent in all parts of the globe. The mastery of this language

would not only serve a practical object, but also make pos sible a closer acquaintance with a literature which, com

pared with that of all the other European countries, prob

ably possesses the highest educational value as well as the

greatest beauty. "As to the general opinion in this matter among the phi

lologists, I dare not give you any definite answer. I believe,

however, that the majority are rather skeptical regarding the artificial languages, such as Volaptik, Esperanto, Ido,

etc., and in the main agree to the objections as to their use

formulated by, for instance, Brugmann and Leskien in their

joint pamphlet, 'Zur Kritik der kunstlichen Weltsprachen' (Strassburg, Triibner, 1907)."

A similar opinion has been expressed by Archbishop Nathan S5derblom, Upsala, and the Bishop of Copen hagen, N. Osterfeld; the- professor at the University in

-Copenhagen, Wilh. Gronbeck; the professor at the high school in Stockholm, Carl Benedicks; the general secre

tary of the Interparliamentary Union, Chr. L. Lange, Kristiania; the professor at the University in Leiden, G. C. Uhlanbeck; the professor at the University in Graz, Josef Mesk; the President of the Norwegian Peace

Society; the Governor of Kristiania, Hkon Ldken; the President of the Danish Peace Society, Deputy Niels Peterson, Copenhagen; Professor Halvdan Cout, Kris tiania; the professor of the University in Lovain, A. J. Cornoy; the Chamber of Commerce in Kristiania, in Gevle, in Bruen (Tjecko-Slovakia), and in Amsterdam.

THE WAR HAS NOT DESTROYED VI

Our Demand for Veracity By ARTHUR DEERIN CALL

TH ROUGH A GLASS DARKLY

NE of our chief concerns is the expert. We are suspicious of him. His "facts" are not always

convincing. Mr. Henry Ford is sure that history is "bunk." In their candid moments, perhaps a majority of the teachers of history will agree with him. The census methods employed by the various nations are so lacking in uniformity and refinement that a graphic study of civilization does not exist; no "graphs" of civ ilization can be made. A professor of economics in one of our large universities confessed to me not long since that his science rests upon no established body of facts. Some of the work in sociology may be scientific in na ture, but it is only by a rather loose handling of termi nology that we may speak of a "science of sociology." We are continually referring to civilization without knowing even the meaning of the word, failing to recog nize that there exist as yet no means of measuring it. Prof. Norman King Smith, successor to Prof. Pringle Pattison, ne Andrew Seth, of St. Andrews, Edinburgh, throughout his inaugural address, in which he devotes himself to the present condition of philosophy, gives no indication of the outcome of the age-long struggle be tween skepticism, naturalism, and idealism. Idealist though he confesses himself to be, he seems to have a warm spot in his heart for both skepticism and natural ism. He seems to comfort his soul in a kind of ethereal eclecticism which savors of a barren ideality. Even the physical sciences, thought to be so impregnable in the 80's and 90's, are recognized now to be febrile and un

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.139 on Wed, 14 May 2014 04:51:29 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions