Pitirim Sorokin

The classification of the schools and their varieties in the book is as follows:

Gobineau shows that neither religious fanaticism, nor corruption and licentiousness, nor luxury leads necessarily to decay, as many authors thought.

The Aztec Empire was religiously fanatical and was accustomed even to sacrifice human beings to their gods; yet this did not lead to its decay, but rather facilitated a long historical existence of this society. The upper classes of Greece, Rome, Persia, Venice, Genoa, England, and Russia lived in luxury for many centuries, yet this did not lead to their decay.

The same may be said of corruption. The earliest ascending stages of ancient Rome, Sparta, and many other societies were far from being virtuous and honest. The early Romans were cruel and pitiless; the Spartans and Phoenicians used to rob, plunder, rape, and lie. They exhibited the greatest corruption; yet this did not hinder these societies from rising and prospering.

"It is not in virtue that we find the cause of their vigour at the earliest stages of their history."

On the other hand, in the period of decay, many societies exhibit an increase of humanitarianism, softening of mores, a decrease of cruelty, corruption, and brutality, and yet this does not stop their decay. Finally, throughout the history of France and other countries there has been much fluctuation in the amount of corruption, with nothing showing a drift toward decay in the more corrupt periods. For these reasons it is evident that corruption cannot account for decay.

Similarly, religious decay not a sufficient cause to explain it. Persia, Tyre, Carthage and Judea fell down when their religion was very intensive. Even in Greece and Rome, religion, especially among the masses of the population, was quite strong in the period of decay. These and similar inductions show that

"it is impossible to explain a people's ruin through their irreligion."

Neither do the merits of a government influence the historical longevity of societies. Bad governments may be classified as those which are foreign, and those which are imposed by foreign degenerate, and class-selfish governments. China had, for thousands of years, a foreign (the Mongol) government, and yet, in spite of this fact, China exists and has often shown great social progress. England was conquered by the foreign Normans, and yet this did not ruin England. Furthermore, we know that societies with a degenerated, or class-selfish government have continued to exist in spite of these conditions. These, and similar historical inductions testify that national decay cannot be accounted for through the character of the government.

In this way Gobineau shows the insufficiency of all these theories. This does not mean that he does not attribute any influence to these factors. He does, but only as to their facilitating the condition brought about. These phenomena may lead to decay only when they are a manifestation of some deeper cause.

After clearing the ground, Gobineau offers his own theory. It consists of the statement that the fundamental factor of the progress or decay of a society is the racial factor.

"Going from one induction to another I came to the conclusion chat ethnical (racial) problems dominate all other problems of history. It is the key to them; and inequality of races is sufficient to explain the entire enchainment of the destinies of peoples." 10

Understanding by the decay or degeneration of a nation the fact

"that the people do not have as much inner valour as they had before,"

the cause of such a degeneration is that

"the people do not have the same blood in their veins any more because through successive cross-marriages, its value has been changed, and they have not been able to preserve the race of their founders."

Correspondingly,

"a people and their civilisation dies out when the people's fundamental racial constitution is changed or engulfed among other races to the degree that it ceases to exert the necessary influence."

As soon as such conditions are given, the mortal hour of a society and of its civilisation is struck. The purity of a race, if the race is talented, is the condition absolutely necessary for preventing the decay of the society and of its civilisation. Such a people is potentially immortal. If they are conquered by an invader, they, like the Chinese under the Mongols, or the Hindus under the Englishmen, can avoid decay, can preserve their civilisation, and, sooner or later, will restore their independence. On the other hand, racial mixture leads to degeneration, even though the society has the most brilliant culture created by its ancestors. So it happened with the Greeks and the Romans. They could not maintain the purity of their race in the later stages of their history, and therefore, in spite of a wonderful culture they decayed.

This leads Gobineau to his second proposition about the inequality of human races. They are unequal. There are the superior and the inferior races. The former are capable of progress; the latter are hopeless. Civilisation and culture have been created by the superior races exclusively, and each type of culture is nothing but a manifestation of racial qualities. To corroborate this statement, Gobineau gives a long series of proofs. The inequality of races is proved by the fact that up to the present time there are many races, which in spite of many thousand years of existence still remain at the most primitive stages of culture. They have not been able to create anything valuable, or to progress in spite of the different environments in which they have been existing. Their creative sterility is due to their racial inferiority rather than to the environmental factors.

"The majority of races are forever incapable of being civilized" and "no environmental agency can fertilize their organic sterility."

Such is the statement of the author. This naturally leads him to a criticism of various theories which have tried to account for racial differences and differences in cultural development through environmental factors, especially through their geographic environment.

"The progress or stagnation of a people does not depend upon 'geographic conditions,"

says Gobineau. Partisans of this theory used to say that people placed in a favourable geographic environment progress, while the people who stay among unfavourable geographic conditions are stagnant. The author states that history does not corroborate such a theory. The environment of America was very favourable and yet the aboriginal races of America, - except three races of South America, - could not create any great civilisation, but remained in the primitive stages. On the other hand, the environment of Egypt, or Athens, or Sparta, or Assyria, was far from being favourable. It was poor and unfertile until artificial irrigation and other measures were created. And yet, in spite of the unfavourable conditions, these races, thanks to their inner genius modified their natural environment, and created brilliant civilisations. The same independence of culture from the environment is shown by the fact that we find the progressive peoples under the most different geographical environments. The same is true in regard to stagnant races. Finally, the absence of any close correlation between the character of the races and that of geographic environment is witnessed by the fact that, in the same environment in one period there exists a brilliant civilisation, and in another period, it disappears, being superseded by a stagnant and incapable people. If geographic conditions were responsible for the progress or stagnation of a people, such things could not take place. Going in this inductive way and giving one fact after another, Gobineau skilfully shows that "geographical theories" cannot give any satisfactory explanation of the racial and cultural differences of peoples.

The next criticism of the author is directed against the theories which try to account for 'die differences of various peoples by social environment, - that is, through the character of the social and political institutions. Gobineau indicates that these theories are wrong also. In the first place, because institutions and laws themselves are only manifestations of racial traits, not their causes. They are created by the people according to their inner qualities, but the people do not create these qualities. The institutions do not fall from the heaven as something ready-made-Neither do they exist before the existence of the peoples with their inner qualities. When laws or institutions, quite heterogeneous to the racial instincts of a people, are compulsorily introduced by a foreign nation, or by a conqueror, or by a radical reformer, they usually do not have any success, but remain on paper, representing mere decoration. Sometimes, when a race cannot resist such innovations, it dies, like many primitive people who have been unable to adapt themselves to such a heterogeneous culture. Even a pure imitation of a foreign culture or institutions is possible only when, in the veins of an imitating race, there is a part of the blood of the people whom they imitate. The negroes of America can imitate some superficial cultural traits of the white race only because in their veins there is already a considerable part of the white blood. The author gives again a long series of facts of this kind, and concludes that the discussed theories cannot give any satisfactory explanation of the differences brought about in various peoples through the social environment. From this viewpoint he analyzes in a detailed form the role of religion, and especially the role of Christianity, in order to show that even this environmental factor cannot explain the differences of various peoples. Though Christianity is accepted by different peoples, teaching them all the same ideas, nevertheless it is forced to leave the institutions of these peoples untouched in their essence. The Eskimo Christian remains Eskimo; the Chinese Christian remains Chinese; the South American native remains what he was; and all these different Christians remain different from one another in spite of the identity of their religion. This shows that unless religion is a direct manifestation of racial instincts (in which case it cannot be universal and cosmopolitan) it cannot change the racial qualities and explain the differences of the races.21

After this critical part, Gobineau outlines his theory of the origin, inequality, and social role of the racial factor. The three volumes of his work are practically devoted to the development of this theory. Its essence is as follows: Besides the above arguments, the fact of racial inequality is corroborated by, and is partially due to, the probable heterogeneous origin of different races.

In this way, he was one of the first authors who set forth the theory of the heterogeneous origin of different races, - the theory stressed later on by Gumplowicz and many anthropologists. Since different races sprang from different sources, it is natural that they are, and must be, different, especially in the early stages of their history, when they were purer than they now are. In spite of a long course of history, and a great mixture of blood even now the races are still different anatomically, physiologically and psychologically. Such differences are permanent and could not be obliterated by any environmental factors. Only cross-marriage or mixture of blood may change racial characteristics. At the beginning of human history there existed three pure principal races: the white, the yellow, and the black. All other racial varieties have been nothing but a mixture of these fundamental races. Of them the most talented and creative was the white race, especially its Aryan branch. In its pure form this race has performed real miracles. It has been practically the creator of all the ten principal civilisations known in the history of mankind. Six of them, namely, - the Hindu, the Egyptian, the Assyrian, the Greek, the Roman, and the Teuton civilisations, were created by the Aryans, who represent the highest branch of the white race. The remaining four civilisations, - the Chinese, Mexican, Peruvian, and Maya, were founded and created by other branches of the white race, mixed with outside races. This white race expanded and conquered other races, but, at the same time, amalgamated with them. From this amalgamation came different racial groups and corresponding civilisations, but the more the amalgamation progressed the more the white race lost its precious qualities, and the more its various branches (like the Greek or the Roman) degenerated. At the time of Jesus Christ the first and the most brilliant part of the history of mankind had been completed. At that time the amalgamation of races had already reached a considerable proportion. Since this period, and up to the present time, it has been progressing, with some fluctuations. The result of such race-blending is a tendency to decay, which has been shown in the history of the last few centuries. It expresses itself in many forms, and one of these is the progress of egalitarian ideas, democratic movements, and the blending of cultures, which, however, does not show anything of that brightness and genius which stamped the previous great civilisations created by relatively pure races. The future prospects drawn by Gobineau are naturally not very hopeful,_ blood- mixture having already progressed so far that the process can scarcely be stopped, it is likely to progress more and more.

After the age of the gods, when the Aryan race was absolutely pure; and the age of heroes when race-blending was slight in form and number, it began, during the age of nobles, to slowly progress. After this age, race-mixture advanced rapidly . . . towards a great confusion of all racial elements and through numerous inter-racial marriages.

The result of such a progress will be a greater and greater similarity of human beings on the one hand, and on the other an increasing mediocrity of men's physical constitutions, of their beauty, and of their mind. Here we have the real triumph of mediocrity, since in this sorrowful inheritance (of race amalgamation) everybody must participate in equal proportion and there is no reason to expect that one would have a better fate than another. Like the Polynesians, all men shall be similar to one another,_in their stature, in their traits, and in their habits.

Human herds, no longer nations, weighed down by a mournful somnolence, will henceforth be benumbed in their nullity, like buffaloes ruminating in the stagnant meres of the Pontine marshes.

This means the death of society and the end of the whole human civilisation.

" The great error of individualistic psychology is the supposition that man thinks. It leads to a continual search for the source of thought in an individual, and for the reason why the individual thinks so and not otherwise. ... A chain of errors: for it is not man himself who thinks but his social community; the source of his thought is in the social medium in which he lives. . . . Man's mind and thought are the product of his social medium, of the social element whence he arose, in which he lives."

....

Further principles of Gumplowicz's theory are as follows:

First, the theory of polygenesis, or the multiple origin of mankind developed by Gobineau thirty years before Gumplowicz.

Second, the assumption of an inherent and deadly hatred in the relationship of one group to another, resulting in an inevitable and deadly struggle between the groups (Rassenkampf).

Third, the assumption that only through such a struggle has any enlargement of the social group, or any consolidation of two or more groups into one social body, been possible.

Fourth, the victorious group, having conquered its victim, pitilessly exploits it, turning it into slaves or subjects.

For the sake of successfully controlling them, it enacts laws, and this way we have :

1. the origin of the states as a union of the victorious and the subjugated groups, in which the conquerors become the privileged and governing body, while the conquered become the exploited and disfranchized body;

2. the origin of law as a totality of compulsory rules enacted by the governing group for the sake of controlling and exploiting the subjugated group;

3. the origin of social stratification and inequality causing the conquerors to become the aristocracy, while the conquered become the lower strata.

The fifth principle is that in the course of time differences between the conquerors and the conquered decrease. The conquerors take over the language and the religion of the conquered, and the gap between them is more and more obliterated. In this way the group becomes more and more solidified until it subjugates, or is subjugated, by another group, when the above process is repeated again. In the repetition of such "ricorsi" we find an essential process of history.