The second moral approach to
civilization building is the creation of a moral elite. I call this approach
the Brahmanic model, because in Hinduism this approach is conspicuous. The
basic idea is that civilization is rather barbaric and so, to preserve some
order, we may need barbaric interventions. In the Hinduist system the warriors,
who form the second highest caste, take care of such barbaric interventions.
The soldiering caste involves itself in law and order, in war and peace, in all
the trappings of power and the use of force. The Brahmans abstain from all such
activity. Brahmans are the people with clean hands who play a spiritual, civilizing
role vis-à-vis the soldier caste.
Many
cultures distinguish between a priest class and a soldier class, not
necessarily by heredity. In those cultures, certain people do the dirty work
that needs to be done, and a privileged group stays clean and has no
operational responsibilities. The dirty ones go to the clean ones for education,
enlightenment, absolution, or blessing, whenever they feel the need or whenever
they are expected to do so.
In
business enterprises the head of quality assurance has no line responsibilities
but can influence production figures dramatically. In the same vein, it is
difficult for a production manager to be under pressure to meet production
goals and deadlines and still be all out for quality. So he may go all out for
production while the quality assurance manager incorporates his quality
conscience, just as Jiminy served as the external conscience of Pinocchio. The
presence of a quality assurance manager means that someone has been set aside
from the immediate heat and pressure to stay aware of less tangible or less
immediate goals. Peter Drucker calls those the ‘conscience functions’ in
organizations.
This
model is all right as far as it goes, but some weak spots are inherent in this
Brahmanic solution. Between the two groups, the operational elite and the moral
or spiritual elite, all kinds of irritations arise quite easily. The power of
the priests is subtle, while the power of the soldiers is not. Priests may
easily fall short of real influence, because they may simply not be up to it.
Soldiers may manipulate weak priests; strong priests may manipulate weak
soldiers. The main danger is that priests may become involved in power
politics. The theme of a corrupt and oppressing priesthood and an ambivalent
warrior group permeates science fiction. Usually the men of action have to
clean up the mess of false pretense and vicious manipulation. Revolt against a
powerful priesthood is an old and prototypical tale.
Our
time has its own priesthoods. Iran is an easy example. Other examples have been
with us longer. The Red Army had its political commissars, who had no power of
military command but who could influence the commanders. These political
commissars had to ensure the orthodoxy of the soldiers, and especially the
officers. Orthodoxy in this case equated to loyalty to the party. This example
is that of a Brahmanic type of organization, though a perverted one. I do not
mean that political commissars are mean or unreliable or perverted. The
perversion lies in the system, as in the USSR the priests had all the power.
The people who were involved in exerting force were the same as the ones who
were involved with shaping minds.
Although
the Brahmanic model carries its risks, it still offers a sane approach to civilization.
In principle, the best people lead. The old Greeks called this ‘aristocracy’,
the rule by ‘the best’. And they meant just that, without assuming that
excellence is hereditary.
The
privileges of the Brahman or aristocrat are, again in principle, compensated by
duties, by noblesse oblige. Or, to
turn around the old Roman saying: Quod
licet bovi, non licet Iovi. Priests have to accept that they have no executive
power, and must realize that other people are pulling the chestnuts out of the
fire. This fact restrains their self-exaltation, while it provides a source of
self-respect for the soldiers. Priests are special and should be revered, but
soldiers guard civilization because they follow the priests of their own
accord.
Finally,
priests and soldiers are countervailing powers, and so there is negotiation, a
kind of market. Priests may denounce soldiers and soldiers may denounce
priests, and both have strong, but different sanctions. It is no wonder that
the big seduction is to make the whole setup into a total institution. How
marvelous it would be to get rid of all ambivalence and balancing acts, all
restraints, all insecurities! Such an institution would be the utmost in administrative
convenience: monolithic power over both bodies and minds. George Orwell’s 1984 is not threatening merely because
it describes a situation that may happen in some future, but because it has
happened so often already. It has happened in states that controlled and
prescribed thoughts and actions. Doublethink is always around whenever an
amalgam of priests and soldiers is present.
The
seduction of an integration of executive and moral responsibility is so strong
that it is almost a trademark of utopias, from Plato onward. Plato’s Guardians
are prototypes; they are both wise and strong. If we want both power and
wisdom, it is always good to have some counterbalance between the two.
The
Prussian Army invented the Chiefs of Staff, experienced high officers with
brilliant minds, to devise and assure the strategy of war, but without operational
authority. Each Army corps had a representative for ‘strategic quality
assurance’. In a sense these Chiefs of Staff were Brahmans, but their role was
not perverted. They were priest-type soldiers, without spiritual (here
political) ambitions and influence. Remember, we are still describing roles,
not individuals. Political control belongs to the role of the Red Army
commissar, not to the role of the representative of the Prussian Generalstab.
Something
of a political quality assurance role has been emerging in our society.
This role is called policy analysis. A book from Aaron Wildavsky about this
subject bears the telling title: Speaking
Truth to Power. I like to think of this ‘speaking truth’ as another aspect
of civilization - less dependence on lies.
Western
civilization has opted for mental anarchy, which manifests itself in religious
tolerance, freedom of speech and freedom of the press. We have instituted in
our judicial system the power of sanction on immorality, and we have made that
system to some extent independent from the main political power systems. For
the rest, our Western civilization seems less congenial to the Brahmanic model.
Since the days of a dual medieval system of Pope and Emperor, dualism has not
been especially strong. Ours is rather the solution of Protestantism: everybody
his own priest. We even use Protestantism in our factories. Quality circles are
the Protestantism of quality assurance in business.
This
second approach, the Brahmanic option, is around wherever there are ‘conscience
functions’ of one kind or another. Make your own examples. More conscience functions,
better conscience functions, a better balance between conscience functions and
executive functions, will all contribute to a more civilized society.
From Chapter 2 in Humanity, Civilization and Politics - e-book at www.onlineorginals.com
