Human nature and the social orderCooley, Charles Horton
Science
Human nature and the social order
Cooley, Charles Horton
Individualism; Social psychology; Sociology
It is the result of physiological theories of ethics—certainly not
intended by the authors of those theories—to make the impulses of an
ideal self, like the sentiment of honor, seem far-fetched, extravagant
and irrational. They have to be justified by an elaborate course of
reasoning which does not seem very convincing after all. No such
impression, however, could result from the direct observation of social
life. In point of fact, a man’s honor, as he conceives it, is his self
in its most immediate and potent reality, swaying his conduct without
waiting upon any inquiry into its physiological antecedents. The
preference of honor to life is not at all a romantic exception in human
behavior, but something quite characteristic of man on a really human
level. A despicable or degenerate person may save his body alive at the
expense of honor, and so may almost anyone in moments of panic or other
kind of demoralization, but the typical man, in his place among his
fellows and with his social sentiments about him, will not do so. We
read in history of many peoples conquered because they lacked discipline
and strategy, or because their weapons were inferior, but we seldom read
of any who were really cowardly in the sense that they would not face
death in battle. And the readiness to face death commonly means that the
sentiment of honor dominates the impulses of terror and pain. All over
the ancient world the Roman legions encountered men who shunned death no
more than themselves, but were not so skilful in inflicting it; and in
Mexico and Peru the natives died by thousands in a desperate struggle
against the Spanish arms. The earliest accounts we have of our own
Germanic ancestors show a state of feeling and practice that made
self-preservation, in a material sense, strictly subordinate to honor.
“Death is better for every clansman than coward life,” says Beowulf,[57]
and there seems no doubt whatever that this was a general principle of
action, so that cowardice was a rare phenomenon. In modern life we see
the same subordination of sensation to sentiment among soldiers and in a
hundred other careers involving bodily peril—not as a heroic exception
but as the ordinary practice of plain men. We see it also in the general
readiness to undergo all sorts of sensual pains and privations rather
than cease to be respectable in the eyes of other people. It is well
known, for instance, that among the poor thousands endure cold and
partial starvation rather than lose their self-respect by begging. In
short, it does not seem too favorable a view of mankind to say that
under normal conditions their minds are ruled by the sentiment of
Norfolk:
“Mine honor is my life: both grow in one;
Take honor from me and my life is done.”
If we once grasp the fact that the self is primarily a social, ideal, or
imaginative fact, and not a sensual fact, all this appears quite natural
and not in need of special explanation.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account