Freedom and Civilization

Bronislaw Malinowski

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317438120
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

From the early days of Hitler's rise to power, Bronislaw Malinowski was an outspoken opponent of National Socialism. In response to this, Malinowski began to devote much attention to the analysis of war, from its development throughout history to its disastrous manifestations at the start of the Second World War. Freedom and Civilization, first published in 1947, is the final expression of Malinowski's basic beliefs and conclusions regarding the war, totalitarianism and the future of humanity. This book will be of interest to students of politics and history.

1 What Are We Fighting For?

DOI: 10.4324/9781315693989-2

In the previous pages it was shown clearly and conclusively that this question must be answered and answered scientifically. A call was made there for intellectual vigilance and for a mobilization of scientific thought and academic activities on the urgent issues of the day. Among other deficiencies of our unpreparedness, we have also failed to mobilize spiritually. There is no doubt that all around us we hear the slogans of "Fight for freedom", "The struggle of democracies against slavery", "The need of establishing justice and decency in the world". Yet when one of us raises his voice to affirm such values as "freedom", "justice", and "democracy", he does it at the risk of being accused of the academically unpardonable sin of "value judgments" or "suffering from a moral purpose".

There are many who condemn value judgments in the vested interests of academic futility, laziness, and irrelevancy. The best remedy here is to recognize that the soundest test of an adequate theory is always to be found in practical applications. The student of society and of human culture has, under present circumstances, the duty to draw practical conclusions, to commit himself to views and decisions referring to problems of planning, and to translate his conclusions into definite propositions of statesmanship.

There is no doubt, however, that the ultimate decision in any matter of action, collective or individual, implies an element which cannot be proved by scientific argument. Medical science can demonstrate that certain forms of diet are indispensable, while other dishes are harmful. The decision whether you prefer to gorge yourself with fried capons soused in Burgundy and steer towards stomach ulcers and arthritis, or on medical advice keep to a reasonable diet, remains with the individual. It is possible to demonstrate that morphia, cocaine, and chronic alcoholism may become dangerous habits; but you cannot demonstrate that their use is not worth the price paid in health and moral integrity.

The student of human behavior can show that democracy, freedom, and justice are essential factors in all creative and constructive processes of culture. He can prove that no progress in matters economic or scientific, moral or artistic, is possible without true freedom. He can clarify the concepts, adduce factual evidence, and demonstrate the relationship of such realities as freedom, democracy and progress, economic, intellectual, and spiritual. After all this has been done, there enters the value judgment. Some may prefer destruction and mass murder to activities which are creative and constructive.

The history of today proves that tastes for cruelty, brutality, contempt, and hatred exist in human nature, and can be fostered so as to stifle and destroy Christian ethics, demands of a humane and just treatment of human beings, and even aspirations to security and prosperity. The final decision as to whether you prefer a world of Hitlerism, or the "American way", or the British type of life rests with the individual and many individuals. Yet such a judgment is only too often made through agencies of collective confusion rather than of scientific clarity. To establish this clarity in the complex problems of democracy, freedom, human culture, and human nature is the task of contemporary humanism. This task is the more urgent because we have to face now a world in which large-scale confusion has been achieved by means of a thoroughly planned and well-executed campaign of totalitarian propaganda.

The real issue, however, on which the value judgments of Americans, Britishers and other fighters on the Democratic side are going to be put on trial, is the price of freedom. One thing can be demonstrated scientifically: this is the essential dependence of all freedoms and every freedom and freedom in general upon the elimination of collective violence. Chronic insecurity, incessant economic disturbances, and the gospel of brutality and might is right, are inevitable in a war-ridden world, but are the direct antithesis of freedom. The price to be paid for this consists, as we know, in an institutional change. This implies a considerable degree of renunciation of national conceit, of self-satisfied reliance on one's isolated and glorious sovereignty—in short, the translation of ordinary principles of law, ethics and co-operation into the sphere of international affairs. Here the choices will be between the romantic values, that is, the sentimental appeal of national pride and self-satisfaction on the one hand, and the real interests of one's own self, one's family and all the people within our national boundaries and outside of them.

Peace, security and international law, sanctioned by a collective police force responsible only to the executive powers of the Superstate, are the only cultural devices which can prevent the recurrence of total war. The price to be paid for this is the collective agreement by all the citizens of each state, large or small, weak or powerful, to surrender part of the sovereignty of its state. This is in reality a small price to pay for the enormous advantages gained. The advantages are freedom from want and freedom from fear. These are the conditions under which initiative, public and private utterance, play, art, and independence of association flourish in culture. The price to be paid is the sacrifice of collective conceit.

The choice of freedom for the key concept of our analysis and around which it must turn, is imperative. Freedom is the most dynamic, essential, and general factor in the problems of to-day. Democracy is freedom in action. Freedom of conscience is the essence of religion, and religion is the core of civilization. Cast off Christianity, and religion enters as the Nordic myth of Aryan superiority, the ritual of Hitler worship, and the Nazi ethics of domination. Proscribe God through the anti-God campaign in Russia, and you will worship the spirit of Marx and his gospel at the shrine of Lenin's embalmed body. "Fascism is the new religion of the Italian people" was proclaimed by Mussolini, who graciously tolerated Christianity among his people, but who preached the true religion of the Black Shirt.

The principle of the self-determination of nations, groups, and persons can be defined only by making clear how far the freedom of collective decisions has to be related to rights of minorities and to legitimate claims of individuals. Justice, again, which is the spirit of laws, is the balancing and the portioning out of freedoms. Security is freedom from fear; and prosperity, freedom from want. We shall even be able to come near to the definition of that most elusive concept, the pursuit of happiness, and relate it to our description of freedom in terms of human needs and their satisfactions.

Freedom as the driving force of the cultural process challenges us also theoretically because it is the most difficult to define. Philosophers and political thinkers, theologians and psychologists, students of history and moralists have used this word with an excessively wide range of meanings. This was due very largely to the fact that the word freedom for very definite reasons has an emotional appeal and a rhetorical weight which make its use very handy in harangue, moral sermon, poetic appeal, and metaphysical argument. In propaganda and in the appeal to what is best and what is worst in human nature, the word freedom is used under the false pretense that this appeal is founded on profound wisdom and even on scientific cogency. Since it is also used in scientific or near-scientific reasoning, the word "freedom" leads a hybrid existence. The duty, therefore, of making clear scientifically to what realities the word freedom can be legitimately applied, and where it appears out of bounds insofar as any semantic legitimacy is concerned, is not to be shirked. We cannot allow the basic concept which controls the main issue of to-day—over which nations are at war, and over which they will have to determine a peace which will seal the future destinies of mankind—to remain vague, elastic and unviable to an extent which allows it to be prostituted in any argument or counterargument.

Freedom is a quality of the cultural process as a whole and it is a quality which cannot be predicated with reference to any specific aspect of the process, nor yet to any partial phase thereof. The distinctions of political, legal, or economic freedom introduce some confusion and are impossible simply because political power, economic pressure, and legal restraint are fundamentally interrelated. Within the framework of a concrete situation we may isolate things legal, as when a policeman arrests an individual in flagrante delictu of speeding, trespassing, or "committing a nuisance". Even then, in the real world in which we live, it is important to know whether the policeman will accept a substantial bribe, in which case economic and legal factors intertwine; or whether the arrestee is a Senator, a Lord, or a higher police officer, perhaps even a member of the Gestapo, in which politics override law and make economics unnecessary. If, however, we consider freedom with reference to the working of human culture as a whole, or with reference to the cultural constitution of a particular society, we shall be able to define the concept in a manner which precludes any ambiguities and solves more of the quibbles, contentions and uncertainties.

I submit that the real difficulty is due to the fact that no definition in terms of individual psychology or individual behavior can be given, because all individual freedoms, as all aspects of individual action, are related to the actions of others. They are also related in this to the instrumentalities necessary for action, that is, to systems of organization, to techniques, to mechanism, and also to words, that is, to speech, thought, deliberation and agreement.

In other words, freedom is an attribute of organized and instrumentally implemented phases of human action. Its great emotional potency is due to the fact that human life and indeed the pursuit of happiness depend upon the nature and the efficiency of those means which culture gives man in his struggle with the environment, with other human beings, and with Destiny herself. Hence unless we refer freedom, to the techniques and technicalities of culture, and unless we understand it in terms of anthropological analysis, we shall never be able to establish the real semantic criteria in the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate uses of this word. Freedom is a symbol which stands for a sublime and powerful ideal. The same symbol, however, may become a dangerous weapon in the hands of the enemies of freedom.

We can predicate freedom with reference to three integrally related phases or aspects of human action. First of all we can speak about the freedom of conscience, of thought or purpose; about the freedom of speech, of the press, of the written word. All these are what might be called the freedom of framing the purpose, individual or social. The second phase about which freedom can be predicated is human action. Lastly, since human action is always purposeful and anticipatory of results, we also predicate freedom with reference to the results or the fruits of human endeavor. In this sense freedom is closely related to prosperity; to the effective exercise of political influence, that is, democracy; and to such fundamental rights as habeas corpus, freedom of worship, and the freedom of reaping the benefits of arts, recreation and all public amenities. All this already implies the definition of the term.

Freedom can be defined as the conditions necessary and sufficient for the formation of a purpose, its translation into effective action through organized cultural instrumentalities, and the full enjoyment of the results of such activity. The concept of freedom therefore can only be defined with reference to human beings organized and endowed with cultural motives, implements and values, which ipso facto implies the existence of law, an economic system and political organization—in short, a cultural system.

Our definition of freedom is composed of three links: purpose, which is embodied in the charter of an institution; instrumentalities, which include the men who work, the tools they use and the rules by which their work is carried to its conclusion; and result or effect, which is the function of the institution. The essential nature of freedom thus conceived is pragmatic. Freedom comes into being when the activities of organized behavior follow human choice and planning. Freedom is determined by the results of action as well as by its prerequisites. The individual's freedom consists in his ability to choose the goal, to find the road, and to reap the rewards of his efforts and endeavors. Those men are free who are able to decide what to do, where to go, or what to build. All claims for freedom remain idle and irrelevant unless planning and aiming can be translated into an effective execution through well-implemented and well-organized behavior. The determining conditions of freedom are therefore to be found in the manner in which a society is organized; in the way in which the instrumentalities are made accessible; and in the guarantees which safeguard all the rewards of planned and purposeful action and insure their equitable distribution.

Any definition in terms only of choices, of maturing and deciding on motives, or even of thought begs the question whether a decision however mature, wise, just or ethical can be effectively carried through. Definitions in terms of mere instruments, mechanical, social or spiritual, beg the question of purpose and result; for the freedom of instrumentalities is in the hands of those by whom the instrumentalities are used and controlled, individually or collectively, and is dependent on whose purpose is carried out, on who enjoys the results and how the results affect others. Sorcery in a primitive culture and a machine gun in our higher civilization give man the freedom to kill. They Imply also the freedom of other people to be killed. This example shows not only that our definition is a minimum one as regards its scope and comprehensiveness, but that it must always be supplemented with regard to co-ordination or relating of purposes and ends. Definitions of freedom only in terms of results achieved, of the enjoyment of a higher standard of living, prosperity, ambition, exercise of powers, and pursuit of happiness in general beg the serious question referring to both purposes and instruments. The freedom of the abuse of power and parasitic enjoyment of wealth in complete idleness implies instruments of exploitation, enslavement and subjection of others. Such freedom is probably enjoyed most fully by Mr. Schickelgruber, the few remaining Oriental despots and perhaps a couple of war profiteers.

Our insistence therefore is on choice, or the formation of a purpose; on instrumentalities or the means to the end; and on enjoyment, or the end achieved and controlled. Only when freedom of thought or of inspiration becomes embodied in an active performance does it become relevant to the student of organized behavior, that is, of culture. The freedom which we need to understand is that powerful force which moves men to deeds, which inspires martyrdom and heroism, which precipitates revolutions and mobilizes nations into wars. Hence we insist on considering freedom only insofar as it refers to action, that is, to a decision which through full scope of being implemented becomes a reality of human behavior.

Clearly, since freedom of action means the conditions sufficient and necessary for the mastery of all circumstances inherent in the execution of purpose, freedom means power. Yet since freedom also means absence of restraint, it implies for every individual a condition of not being submitted to the power of others. It is evident therefore that the element of power, of efficiency, of ability to overcome obstacles, must be regarded as indispensable in any definition of freedom. Without some order—and order always implies a residue of authority if not coercion—freedom means anarchy. Thus submission to laws as well as the power to enforce laws and rules are indispensable in human behavior. It is equally evident that the real plus or minus of freedom is dependent on this legitimate use or on the abuse of power. When the work and effort of carrying out a task are imposed on the members of the group, and the advantages of this enterprise are enjoyed only by those who are in authority in the group, we have an abuse of power, through the differential distribution of advantage and effort respectively; and with it, a denial of freedom to those who have done the work.

It is clear from this that we shall need to throw some light on the nature of the rules, norms of conduct, and sanctioned laws which bind co-operating groups, in order to differentiate between tyranny and order, between dictatorship and democracy; in short, between a culture based on the arbitrary use of violence as its main principle, as opposed to a community in which the laws originate from spontaneous and bilateral agreements, while some of the rules have to be accepted simply because they are technical rules of concerted and implemented behavior, or laws which are guarantees of existence and of the exercise of culture. We shall also be able to show that cultures differ as regards the quota of freedom which they give, and we shall see that this largely depends upon the integral constitution of a culture, or as we shall call it, on its charter. Cultures organized for the pursuit of collective violence; cultures economically founded on slavery; cultures chronically or occasionally facing crises, especially war crises, imply a type of constitution where freedom does not flourish.

Our definition will also appear more viable insofar as we shall recognize that a culture, primitive or developed, can always be analyzed into its component institutions, that is, systems of organized activities, each with a charter or collective purpose; with an organized personnel; with a set of specific rules; and each operating a portion of the environment and using special instruments determined by the charter. Certain types of such institutions, slavery for instance, a military cast or a strict hierarchy, are as a rule related to the general type and constitution of a culture; in these cases the charter of the culture is based on definite abrogations of freedom to certain sections of the community. The same analysis that allows us to point out the presence or absence of freedom as determined by the charter of a culture, will also help us to show which are the constitutional elements that guarantee freedom within the institution and which are those that preclude it. Freedom once more, defined with reference to an institution. can be followed up within that group and related to the scope of action and the guarantees of satisfaction enjoyed by an individual.

True freedom—the freedom of order, of action and of achievement—enters into the very texture of human life and of ordered, organized human societies. It is a reality to be found in the conduct of domestic life, in the processes of learning, in the acquisition of values, in the administration of justice, the protection of life and property, and in the cultivation of science, art, recreation and religion. In all this we find that freedom is a gift of culture. It might as well be said that culture is a gift of freedom, for from the very beginnings of humanity freedom is a prerequisite of the exercise, the maintenance and the advancement of cultural achievements.

2 Freedom in the Birth and Growth of Culture

DOI: 10.4324/9781315693989-3

Culture from its very beginnings consists in the organized exploitation by human intelligence of environmental opportunities, and in the disciplining of drives, skills, and nervous reactions in the service of collective and implemented action. The earliest human groups, and the individuals which form them, achieve a much greater integral freedom of mobility and environmental adaptation, freedom of security and prosperity, by the use of tools, by following the principles of knowledge, and by loyalty to a system of activities started with a purpose and carried out concertedly.

In its earliest beginnings, as well as in its fundamental function throughout evolution, culture satisfies first and foremost man's basic needs. Culture thus means primarily the freedom of survival to the species under a variety of environmental conditions for which man is not equipped by nature. This freedom of survival can be analyzed into freedom of security and freedom of prosperity. By freedom of security we mean the protective mechanisms which culture gives through artifacts and co-operation and which endow the species with a much wider margin of safety. Freedom of prosperity refers to the increased, widened, and diversified power of exploiting environmental resources, allowing man to prepare for periods of scarcity, accumulate wealth, and thus obtain leisure for many types of activities which man as an animal would never have undertaken.

The advent of culture changes man the animal into man the artificer, man the organizer, and man the thinker, talker, and planner. Man the animal lives within an environment to which, like any other animal, he became adapted in...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Preface
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• I Political Prelude
• Political Prelude
• II Freedom in Scientific Analysis
• 1 What Are We Fighting For?
• 2 Freedom in the Birth and Growth of Culture
• III The Meaning of Freedom
• 1 Freedom in Its Universe of Semantic Chaos
• 2 Analysis of the Multiple Meanings
• 3 The Concept of Free-Floating-Freedom
• 4 Freedom in Subjective Experience
• 5 The Semantics of Freedom
• IV Freedom as a Gift of Culture
• 1 The Initial Installment of Freedom
• 2 Differential Contributions to Early Freedom
• 3 Value and Derived Needs
• 4 Freedom, Education and the Formation of Purpose
• 5 Freedom Through Organization
• 6 The Nature of Cultural Determinism
• 7 Rules of Freedom and Rules of Servitude
• 8 Freedom and Discipline
• 9 The Role of Religion and Magic
• 10 Man's Dependence on Mechanical Device
• V The Real Battlefields of Freedom
• 1 Democracy and Proto-Democracy
• 2 Power, Its Birth and Development
• 3 Tribe-Nation and Tribe-State
• 4 The State, Arbiter or Aggressor
• 5 War Throughout the Ages
• 6 War and Slavery as Main Denials of Freedom
• 7 Totalitarianism, the Enemy of Freedom and Culture
• Epilogue: The Foundations of Democracy and Freedom to Come
• Bibliography