IN 1889, THE EIFFEL TOWER stood above Paris as a beacon of progress, a symbol of what technology and industrialization could accomplish. Constructed from iron to mark the entrance to the World’s Fair, it was the tallest structure in the world, extending 1,000 feet above the city. Over a period of five months, 3.5 million visitors paid to ascend the tower and overlook the grounds teeming with throngs of people. Almost 175,000 people a day came to visit the fair’s 60,000 exhibits, which included an Algerian bazaar, Swiss chalet, Indian palace, and Japanese garden. Guidebooks for the fair posited that a visitor would need ten to twenty days to see all of the displays. One awestruck visitor declared, “There is only one cry; this is the most grandiose, the most dazzling, the most marvelous spectacle ever seen.” For most in attendance, the modern era was indeed an age of progress that was providing more opportunities, higher standards of living, better cities, more goods to consume, and greater democratization.
The optimism found at the World’s Fair and throughout Europe’s cities was not unchallenged, however. Some were still struggling to achieve progress. Many workers continued to endure pitiful housing conditions and low wages, while women fought for the right to vote. Beneath the apparent calm, political tensions were also building, fueled by imperialist adventures, international rivalries, and cultural uncertainties. After 1880, Europeans engaged in a great race for colonies around the world. This competition for lands abroad greatly intensified existing antagonisms among European states.
Ultimately, Europeans proved incapable of finding constructive ways to cope with their international rivalries. The development of two large alliance systems – the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente – may have helped preserve peace for a time, but eventually the alliances made it easier for the European nations to be drawn into World War I.
The cultural life of Europe in the decades before 1914 reflected similar dynamic tensions. The advent of mass education produced better-informed citizens but also made it easier for governments to stir up the masses by nationalistic appeals through the new mass journalism. At the same time, despite the appearance of progress, European philosophers, writers, and artists were creating modern cultural expressions that questioned traditional ideas and values and initiated a crisis of confidence. Before 1914, many intellectuals had a sense of unease about the direction in which society was heading, accompanied by a feeling of imminent catastrophe. They proved remarkably prophetic ...
Before 1914, most Europeans continued to believe in the values and ideals that had been generated by the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment. Reason, science, and progress were still important buzzwords in the European vocabulary. The ability of human beings to improve themselves and achieve a better society seemed to be well demonstrated by a rising standard of living, urban improvements, and mass education. Such products of modern technology as electric lights, phonographs, cinema, and automobiles reinforced the popular prestige of science and the belief in the ability of the human mind to comprehend the universe through the use of reason. Near the end of the nineteenth century, however, a dramatic transformation in the realm of ideas and culture challenged many of these assumptions. A new view of the physical universe, an appeal to the irrational, alternative views of human nature, and radically innovative forms of literary and artistic expression shattered old beliefs and opened the way to a modern consciousness. These new ideas called forth a sense of confusion and anxiety that would become even more pronounced after World War I.
Science was one of the chief pillars supporting the optimistic and rationalistic view of the world that many Westerners shared in the nineteenth century. Supposedly based on hard facts and cold reason, science offered a certainty of belief in the orderliness of nature that was comforting to many people for whom traditional religious beliefs no longer had much meaning. Many naïvely believed that the application of already known scientific laws would give humanity a complete understanding of the physical world and an accurate picture of reality. The new physics dramatically altered that perspective.
Throughout much of the nineteenth century, Westerners adhered to the mechanical conception of the universe postulated by the classical physics of Isaac Newton. In this perspective, the universe was viewed as a giant machine in which time, space, and matter were objective realities that existed independently of the people observing them. Matter was thought to be composed of indivisible solid material bodies called atoms.
These views were first seriously questioned at the end of the nineteenth century. The French scientist Marie Curie (kyoo-REE) (1867-1934) and her husband Pierre (1859-1906) discovered that the element radium gave off rays of radiation that apparently came from within the atom itself. Atoms were not simply hard, material bodies but small worlds containing such subatomic particles as electrons and protons that behaved in seemingly random and inexplicable fashion. Inquiry into the disintegrative process within atoms became a central theme of the new physics.
Building on this work, in 1900, a Berlin physicist, Max Planck (PLAHNK) (1858-1947), rejected the belief that a heated body radiates energy in a steady stream but maintained instead that energy is radiated discontinuously, in irregular packets that he called “quanta.” The quantum theory raised fundamental questions about the subatomic realm of the atom. By 1900, the old view of atoms as the basic building blocks of the material world was being seriously questioned, and Newtonian physics was in trouble.
THE WORK OF EINSTEIN Albert Einstein (YN-styn or YN-shtyn) (1879-1955), a German-born patent officer working in Switzerland, pushed these theories of thermodynamics into new terrain. In 1905, Einstein published a paper titled “The Electro-Dynamics of Moving Bodies” that contained his special theory of relativity. According to relativity theory, space and time are not absolute but relative to the observer, and both are interwoven into what Einstein called a four-dimensional space-time continuum. Neither space nor time had an existence independent of human experience. As Einstein later explained simply to a journalist, “It was formerly believed that if all material things disappeared out of the universe, time and space would be left. According to the relativity theory, however, time and space disappear together with the things.” Moreover, matter and energy reflected the relativity of time and space. Einstein concluded that matter was nothing but another form of energy. His epochal formula E = mc2 – each particle of matter is equivalent to its mass times the square of the velocity of light - was the key theory explaining the vast energies contained within the atom. It led to the atomic age.
Many scientists were unable to comprehend Einstein’s ideas, but during a total eclipse of the sun in May 1919, scientists were able to demonstrate that light was deflected in the gravitational field of the sun, just as Einstein had predicted. This confirmed Einstein’s general theory of relativity and opened the scientific and intellectual world to his ideas. The 1920s would become the “heroic age” of physics.
Intellectually, the decades before 1914 witnessed a combination of contradictory developments. Thanks to the influence of science, confidence in human reason and progress still remained a dominant thread. At the same time, however, a small group of intellectuals attacked the idea of optimistic progress, dethroned reason, and glorified the irrational.
NIETZSCHE Friedrich Nietzsche (FREED-rikh NEE-chuh or NEE-chee) (1844-1900) was one of the intellectuals who glorified the irrational. According to Nietzsche, Western bourgeois society was decadent and incapable of any real cultural creativity, primarily because of its excessive emphasis on the rational faculty at the expense of emotions, passions, and instincts. Reason, Nietzsche claimed, actually played little role in human life because humans were at the mercy of irrational life forces.
Nietzsche believed that Christianity should shoulder much of the blame for Western civilization’s enfeeblement. The “slave morality” of Christianity, he believed, had obliterated the human impulse for life and had crushed the human will:
I call Christianity the one great curse, the one enormous and innermost perversion.... I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind.... Christianity has taken the side of everything weak, base, ill-constituted, it has made an ideal out of opposition to the preservative instincts of strong life.... Christianity is called the religion of pity. --Pity stands in antithesis to the basic emotions which enhance the energy of the feeling of life: it has a depressive effect. One loses force when one pities.
How, then, could Western society be renewed? First, said Nietzsche, one must recognize that “God is dead.” Europeans had killed God, he said, and it was no longer possible to believe in some kind of cosmic order. Eliminating God and hence Christian morality had liberated human beings and made it possible to create a higher kind of being Nietzsche called the superman: “I teach you the Superman. Man is something that is to be surpassed.” Superior intellectuals must free themselves from the ordinary thinking of the masses, create their own values, and lead the masses. Nietzsche rejected and condemned political democracy, social reform, and universal suffrage.
BERGSON Another popular revolutionary against reason in the 1890s was Henri Bergson (AHN-ree BERK-son) (1859-1941), a French philosopher whose lectures at the University of Paris made him one of the most important influences in French thought in the early twentieth century. Bergson accepted rational, scientific thought as a practical instrument for providing useful knowledge but maintained that it was incapable of arriving at truth or ultimate reality. To him, reality was the “life force” that suffused all things; it could not be divided into analyzable parts. Reality was a whole that could only be grasped intuitively and experienced directly. When we analyze it, we have merely a description, no longer the reality we have experienced.
SOREL Georges Sorel (ZHORZH soh-RELL) (1847-1922), a French political theorist, combined Bergson’s and Nietzsche’s ideas on the limits of rational thinking with his own passionate interest in revolutionary socialism. Sorel understood the political potential of the non-rational and advocated violent action as the only sure way to achieve the aims of socialism. To destroy capitalist society, he recommended the use of the general strike, envisioning it as a mythic image that had the power to inspire workers to take violent, heroic action against the capitalist order. Sorel also came to believe that the new socialist society would have to be governed by a small elite ruling body because the masses were incapable of ruling themselves.
Around the turn of the twentieth century, a Viennese doctor, Sigmund Freud (SIG-mund or ZIG-munt FROID) (1856-1939), put forth a series of theories that undermined optimism about the rational nature of the human mind. Freud’s thought, like the new physics and the irrationalism of Nietzsche, added to the uncertainties of the age. His major ideas were published in 1900 in The Interpretation of Dreams, which contained the basic foundation of what came to be known as psychoanalysis.
ROLE OF THE UNCONSCIOUS According to Freud, human behavior was strongly determined by the unconscious, by earlier experiences and inner forces of which people were largely oblivious. To explore the content of the unconscious, Freud relied not only on hypnosis but also on dreams, but the latter were cloaked in an elaborate code that had to be deciphered if the content was to be properly understood.
But why did some experiences whose influence persisted in controlling an individual’s life remain unconscious? According to Freud, the answer was repression (see the box on p. 727), a process by which unsettling experiences were blotted from conscious awareness but still continued to influence behavior because they had become part of the unconscious. To explain how repression worked, Freud elaborated an intricate theory of the inner life of human beings.
According to Freud, a human being’s inner life was a battleground of three contending forces: the id, ego, and superego. The id was the center of unconscious drives and was ruled by what Freud termed the pleasure principle. As creatures of desire, human beings directed their energy toward pleasure and away from pain. The id contained all kinds of lustful drives and desires and crude appetites and impulses. The ego was the seat of reason and hence the coordinator of the inner life. It was governed by the reality principle. Although humans were dominated by the pleasure principle, a true pursuit of pleasure was not feasible. The reality principle meant that people rejected pleasure so that they might live together in society. The superego was the locus of conscience and represented the inhibitions and moral values that society in general and parents in particular imposed on people. The superego served to force the ego to curb the unsatisfactory drives of the id.
The human being was thus a battleground among id, ego, and superego. Ego and superego exerted restraining influences on the unconscious id and repressed or kept out of consciousness what they wanted to. The most important repressions, according to Freud, were sexual, and he went on to develop a theory of infantile sexual drives embodied in the Oedipus complex (Electra complex for females), or the infant’s craving for exclusive possession of the parent of the opposite sex. Repression began in childhood, and psychoanalysis was accomplished through a dialogue between psychotherapist and patient in which the therapist probed deeply into memory in order to retrace the chain of repression all the way back to its childhood origins. By making the conscious mind aware of the unconscious and its repressed contents, the patient’s psychic conflict was resolved.
Although many of Freud’s ideas have been shown to be wrong in many details, he is still regarded as an important figure because of the impact his theories have had.
In the second half of the nineteenth century, scientific theories were sometimes wrongly applied to achieve other ends. The application of Darwin’s principle of organic evolution to the social order came to be known as social Darwinism.
SOCIAL DARWINISM The most popular exponent of social Darwinism was the British philosopher Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). Using Darwin’s terminology, Spencer argued that societies were organisms that evolved through time from a struggle with their environment. Progress came from “the struggle for survival,” as the “fit” - the strong - advanced while the weak declined.
As Spencer expressed it in 1851 in his book Social Statics:
Pervading all Nature we may see at work a stem discipline which is a little cruel that it may be very kind .. .. Meanwhile, the well-being of existing humanity and the unfolding of it into this ultimate perfection, are both secured by the same beneficial though severe discipline to which the animate creation at large is subject. It seems hard that an unskillfulness, which with all his efforts he cannot overcome, should entail hunger upon the artisan. It seems hard that a laborer, incapacitated by sickness from competing with his stronger fellows, should have to bear the resulting privations. It seems hard that widows and orphans should be left to struggle for life or death. Nevertheless, when regarded not separately but in connection with the interests of universal humanity, these harsh fatalities are seen to be full of beneficence – the same beneficence which brings to early graves the children of diseased parents, and singles out the intemperate and the debilitated as the victims of an epidermic.
The state should not intervene in this natural process.
RACISM
Rabid nationalists and racists also applied Darwin’s ideas in an even more radical way. In their pursuit of national greatness, extreme nationalists argued that nations, too, were engaged in a “struggle for existence” in which only the fittest survived. The German general Friedrich von Bernhardi (FREED-rikh fun bayrn-HAR-dee) (1849-1930) argued in 1907:
War is a biological necessity of the first importance, a regulative element in the life of mankind which cannot be dispensed with, since without it an unhealthy development will follow, which excludes every advancement of the race, and therefore all real civilization. “War is the father of all things.” The sages of antiquity long before Darwin recognized this.
Numerous nationalist organizations preached the same doctrine as Bernhardi. The Nationalist Association of Italy, for example, founded in 1910, declared that “we must teach Italy the value of international struggle. But international struggle is war? Well, then, let there be war! And nationalism will arouse the will for a victorious war, ... the only way to national redemption.”
Racism, too, was dramatically revived and strengthened by new biological arguments. Perhaps nowhere was the combination of extreme nationalism and racism more evident and more dangerous than in Germany. The concept of the Volk (FULK) (nation, people, or race) had been an underlying idea in German history since the beginning of the nineteenth century. One of the chief propagandists for German volkish thought at the turn of the twentieth century was Houston Stewart Chamberlain (1855-1927), an Englishman who became a German citizen. His book The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, published in 1899, made a special impact on Germany. Modern-day Germans, according to Chamberlain, were the only pure successors of the “Aryans,” who were portrayed as the true and original creators of Western culture. The Aryan (AR-ee-un) race, under German leadership, must be prepared to fight for Western civilization and save it from the destructive assaults of such lower races as Jews, Negroes, and Orientals. Increasingly, Jews were singled out by German volkish nationalists as the racial enemy in biological terms and as parasites who wanted to destroy the Aryan race.
The growth of scientific thinking as well as the forces of modernization presented new challenges to the Christian churches. Industrialization and urbanization had an especially adverse effect on religious institutions. With the mass migration of people from the countryside to the city, the close-knit, traditional ties of the village in which the church had been a key force gave way to new urban patterns of social life from which the churches were of ten excluded. The established Christian churches had a weak hold on workers.
The political movements of the late nineteenth century were also hostile to the established Christian churches. Beginning during the eighteenth-century Enlightenment and continuing well into the nineteenth century, European governments, especially in predominantly Catholic countries, had imposed controls over church courts, religious orders, and appointments of the clergy. But after the failure of the revolutions of 1848, governments were eager to use the churches’ aid in reestablishing order and relaxed these controls.
Eventually, however, the close union of state authorities with established churches produced a backlash in the form of anticlericalism, especially in the liberal nation-states of the late nineteenth century. As one example, in the 1880s, the French republican government substituted civic training for religious instruction in order to undermine the Catholic Church’s control of education. In 1901, Catholic teaching orders were outlawed, and four years later, in 1905, church and state were completely separated.
Science became one of the chief threats to all the Christian churches and even to religion itself in the nineteenth century. Darwin’s theory of evolution, accepted by ever-larger numbers of educated Europeans, seemed to contradict the doctrine of divine creation. By seeking to suppress Darwin’s books and to forbid the teaching of the evolutionary hypothesis, the churches often caused even more educated people to reject established religions.
The scientific spirit also encouraged a number of biblical scholars to apply critical principles to the Bible, leading to the so-called higher criticism. One of its leading exponents was Ernst Renan (re-NAHNH) (1823-1892), a French Catholic scholar. In his Life of Jesus, Renan questioned the historical accuracy of the Bible and presented a radically different picture of Jesus. He saw Jesus not as the son of God but as a human being whose value lay in the example he provided by his life and teaching.
RESPONSE OF THE CHURCHES One response of the Christian churches to these attacks was the outright rejection of modern ideas and forces. Protestant fundamentalist sects were especially important in maintaining a literal interpretation of the Bible. The Catholic Church under Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) also took a rigid stand against modern ideas. In 1864, Pope Pius issued a papal encyclical called the Syllabus of Errors in which he stated that it is “an error to believe that the Roman Pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself to, and agree with, progress, liberalism, and modern civilization.” He condemned nationalism, socialism, religious toleration, and freedom of speech and press.
Rejection of the new was not the churches’ only response, however. A religious movement called Modernism included an attempt by the churches to reinterpret Christianity in the light of new developments. The modernists viewed the Bible as a book of useful moral ideas, encouraged Christians to become involved in social reforms, and insisted that the churches must provide a greater sense of community. The Catholic Church condemned Modernism in 1907 and had driven it underground by the beginning of World War 1.
Yet another response of the Christian churches to modern ideas was compromise, an approach especially evident in the Catholic Church during the pontificate of Leo XIII (1878-1903). Pope Leo permitted the teaching of evolution as a hypothesis in Catholic schools and also responded to the challenges of modernization in the economic and social spheres. In his encyclical De Rerum Novarum (day RAYR-um noh-VAR-um), issued in 1891, he upheld the individual’s right to private property but at the same time criticized “naked” capitalism for the poverty and degradation in which it had left the working classes. Much in socialism, he declared, was Christian in principle, but he condemned Marxist socialism for its materialistic and antireligious foundations. The pope recommended that Catholics form socialist parties and labor unions of their own to help the workers.
Other religious groups also made efforts to win support for Christianity among the working-class poor and to restore religious practice among the urban working classes. Sects of evangelical missionaries were especially successful; a prime example is the Salvation Army, founded in London in 1865 by William Booth (1829-1912), the army’s first “general.” The Salvation Army established food centers, shelters where the homeless could sleep, and “rescue homes” for women, but all these had a larger purpose, as Booth admitted: “It is primarily and mainly for the sake of saving the soul that I seek the salvation of the body.”