Featured Post

New book available! David Kaiser, A Life in History

Mount Greylock Books LLC has published my autobiography as an historian,  A Life in History.   Long-time readers who want to find out how th...

Thursday, August 30, 2018

Thank you again, Henry Adams

In 1894, the historian Henry Adams--the great-grandson and grandson of Presidents John and John Quincy Adams--mailed in his presidential address to the American Historical Association.  Adams had quit academia, resigning his assistant professorship at Harvard (a position I later held myself) in the 1870s to move to Washington, since he, unlike myself, wanted to spend his life among the nation's movers and shakers.  (The many parallels between his life and mine will figure in my forthcoming autobiography.)  Yet he was the author of one of the half-dozen greatest works of US history, History of the United States during the Administrations of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, a nine-volume work of extraordinary penetration, analysis, and humor.  And the address he wrote posed what has turned out to be the critical problem of 21st century western civilization: the impact and fate of the Enlightenment tradition of which he was a part.

History, Adams wrote, had increasingly been dominated over the past half-century or so by a single ambition: to become a science that might reach valid conclusions about the future of the human race.  He did not say, although he might have, that that quest was simply one aspect of the broader attempt that western civilization was making to use human reason to perfect politics and economics, creating a more just society.  That was the idea that the west was going to spread around the world during the frist half of the twentieth century.  Adams did not commit himself in his address to any one view of what conclusions a science of history might reach, instead listing three possibilities.  Yet he put his finger on the key problem of attempts to order human society according to reason.  Whatever conclusion historians reached, he argued, powerful interests would resist it.  "Any science," he wrote, "assumes a necessary sequence of cause and effect, a force resulting in motion which can not be other than what it is. Any science of history must be absolute, like other sciences, and must fix with mathematical certainty the path which human society has got to follow. That path can hardly lead toward the interests of all the great social organizations. We can not conceive that it should help at the same time the church and the state, property and communism, capital and poverty, science and religion, trade and art. Whatever may be its orbit, it must, at least for a time, point away from some of these forces toward others which are regarded as hostile. Conceivably, it might lead off in eccentric lines away from them all, but by no power of our imagination can we conceive that it should lead toward them all." We now know that he was right.

Specifically, Adams said, history might eventually conclude that human society was heading towards socialism--and thus declare war on existing institutions.  "Would property, on which the universities depend, allow such freedom of instruction?" he asked. "Would the state suffer its foundation to be destroyed? Would society as now constituted tolerate the open assertion of a necessity which should affirm its approaching overthrow?" Secondly, history might conclude that the characteristic features of contemporary society--"its huge armaments, its vast accumulations of capital, its advancing materialism, and declining arts—were to be continued, exaggerated, over another thousand years." In that case, no one would want to listen to historians, who would be regarded as prophets of despair.  One other possibility remained: "If, finally, the science should prove that society must at a given time revert to the church and recover its old foundation of absolute faith in a personal providence and a revealed religion, it commits suicide."   In my opinion, the history of the world going back to ancient times tells the story of a struggle among those three views, none of which is destined to prevail.  That explains the unfortunate trends that have dominated the world for the last 40 years or so, and which show no signs of abating any time soon.

While socialism in its pure form of state ownership of the means of production only came to power in Communist nations--and there, significantly, only temporarily--certain socialist ideas did become conventional wisdom in Europe, North America, and elsewhere by the middle of the twentieth century.  Governments, led by FDR's New Deal, assumed a responsibility for the welfare of their people that included attempts to reduce inequality of wealth.  Economists and politicians recognized that a growing economy required that all classes of society share in economic growth--a result which, as Thomas Piketty reminded us four years ago, would not occur automatically if capitalism were left alone.  Adams, however, was right: even this limited socialism provoked a powerful long-term reaction from those who held capital.  By the 1990s the institutions and practices that had increased equality were disappearing and the march towards greater inequality had resumed.  It is continuing all over the globe now, in Western Europe as well as the United States, even though it has not as yet gone quite as far on the other side of the Atlantic as here.  The mid-century consensus rested on a sound scientific basis, but capital had to overthrow it not in spite of, but because of, that fact.  And so it has.

Turning to another of Adams's possible outcomes, historians have not yet concluded that humanity must revert to religion, but many societies have.  The secularism that went along with the Enlightenment reached a peak in worldwide influence sometime during the first half of the twentieth century, extending in Turkey even into the heart of the Muslim world, but orthodox religion has made a comeback not only there, but here in the United States, where it enjoys remarkable political influence, and in Russia, where the church is once again a powerful arm of the state.  

Adams's other possibility--that a science of history might show that we are condemned to a continuation of existing things--strikes me as closest to a true historical conclusion, although it required a further proviso.  We must understand "a continuation of existing things" as a dynamic rather than static description.  Religion, science, greed and egalitarianism always live within human breasts and are always at war in our politics.  Some are winning at any given moment but begin ceding ground later on.  My generation, as it turns out, was born very near a turning point.

When will rationalism and a sense of the common good once again become the key elements of our political and economic life?  Will it require more catastrophes like the two world wars, or perhaps the consequences of global warming, to make it happen? These are questions for the future. Meanwhile, it seems, Henry Adams laid the foundation for understanding the ups and downs of human history, and of our time.


Jude Hammerle said...

Dear Dr. Kaiser,

Henry Adams failed to imagine one solution that could make history coherent with science and therefore predictive: history may reflect simply the deep structure of human nature. Sadly, the academy no longer seeks this structure seriously. Instead it pores over the resulting complexity, rejoicing over false or fragmentary gains and honoring itself for doing so.

Jude Hammerle

Ed Boyle said...

It seems from above that we are in a merchant cycle(declining stage) which precedes chaotic decline of war and leads to a heric age. So the answer to your question is in perhaps a couple hundred years in a new social arrangement under a new golden age. This is the weakness of the Straus and Howe model. It limits itself to 80 years. The entire rise and decline cycle is not examined at all. Perhaps for Anmerica 4 80 year cycles would fit from revolution to 1860(heroic age) to golden rational age 1865 till WWII to merchant age from 1945 till 2020 and then a century of chaos, civil war, decay. So this would fit perfectly our observations. The seeds of the next phase are inherent in the intellectual life of the current phase. Rationalism was born with science in heroic settlement days and dominated phase after civil war. Money was nascent dominating factor after civil war and becam our mdern religion. Negation of all social, religious, economic common sense is inherent in last decades and is birthing chaos around us. Others will take up America's slack . It's not the end of the world. Chinese civilization always made a comeback. America's may too if the environment is not destroyed like in desertification of ancient kingdoms in Middle East.

Doug Ptacek Jr said...

I'm wondering if you're familiar with Peter Turchin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Turchin
He is a biologist by training who turned to using his skills to try and mathematically model historical trends using historical and archaeological data. It is a discipline he has dubbed "cliodynamics".
I follow his blog (http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/) as well as yours and would be interested in your perspective on the field of cliodynamics.

Bozon said...

Interesting essay.

My views of the roles of science and of history are a little different.

Re: Adams' speculation re history concluding that human society is heading in the direction of socialism.(One of three alternatives)

Why not plug in globalization, and ask Adams' question that way, since everyone has been talking about universities and issues of race discrimination ethnicity civilization and competitiveness?

'Specifically, Adams said, history might eventually conclude that human society was heading towards globalization (not socialism)--and thus declare war on existing institutions. "Would property, on which the universities depend, allow such freedom of instruction?" he asked. "Would the state suffer its foundation to be destroyed? Would society as now constituted tolerate the open assertion of a necessity which should affirm its approaching overthrow?"

It seems to me that one can make a very good case that that is what globalization has been doing, much more effectively than Adams' conception of mere socialism ever could, even though the utopian ideal of socialism is also a global rather than a national one.

All the best

Unknown said...

Article contains so many fruitful information which will be liked by the readers as in my opinion
this is the best article in this category.