Page 23 [23]
What can I know (if trust in knowledge has been lost)? | 21
man can reach the perfection of his nature is necessarily a closed society, the
distinction of the human race into a number of independent groups is according
to nature.” All historians are aware of this: the development of culture
goes together with the deepening of differences — as the distinctive
character of individual communities evolves — and it is not unity, but
the differences which explain the spread of the great cultural
achievements, the ever livelier dialogue of competing civilisations.
The above-quoted Huxley, however, was a biologist, the typical
representative of the belief in progress based purely on the foundations
of natural science. Similarly to many other modern thinkers, when he
talks about development, he blithely employs the concept of development
used in evolutionary biology for changes occurring in society. He does
not take into account the decisive role of the units of population
(cultures) below the level of the species. While natural selection works
with individuals capable of reproduction and singular variants, cultural
development works with communities, with members that understand
each other, form common norms and pass on their knowledge as advice
to succeeding generations. The process bears not even a passing
resemblance to the biological mechanism of successful mutations
becoming widespread. Communities themselves are nothing other than
a continuous and regular effort to create a mutual meaning that can be
shared with companions. They are the creation of communication, a
kind of spiritual reality. It seems that Huxley, in common with many
other modern thinkers, viewed scientific progress as the direct
continuation of biological evolution and that he confused the social
individual, the ethical subject, with the individual of the species homo
sapiens.
Following the successful expansion of Western civilisation, two
mutually contradictory convictions took root among enlightened minds.
They proclaimed the universality of humanity and the superiority of
European civilisation with equally genuine enthusiasm. The gentler
souls explained the subjugation of their fellow human beings with their
civilising mission, while the more practically minded found justifications
in social Darwinism which (groundlessly) appealed to Darwin. ‘The
historical necessity of the progress of the absolute spirit and the mission
of the Christian peoples was also mentioned. In the ideology of progress
all this forms a unity (or becomes mixed together). If we remove the
3 Leo Strauss: Natural Right and History. Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1953,
p.150-151.