The nature of liberal' civilization: a discussion between Sidney Hook and Bertrand Russell
The British Broadcasting Corporation presents a conversation on the nature of liberal civilization between Dr. Sidney Hook, well-known educator and philosopher and Chairman of New York University's Graduate Division of Philosophy and Psychology, and the eminent British philosopher Bertrand Russell.
Hook: Our theme, Russell, is the nature ofliberal civilization, and the problems which it confronts today. All sorts of definitions of liberal civilization have been offered, and I suppose we don't want to take too much time exploring definitions. Well, I want to propose a definition of liberal civilization as one in which there is a free market of ideas and in which there is a belief that the play of intelligence will lead to equitable solutions of problems more readily than by the use offorce, tradition, or similar instruments. Now, from the belief in the free market of ideas, it seems to me that, as liberals, we are committed to a defence ofthe right of heresy, because one never knows when a heretical idea may turn out to be a valid idea. We cannot make the assumption of absolute truth, and so I've very often tended to identify a liberal civilization with a beliefin the right to heresy. But now, unfortunately, our modern society differs from the society of fifty or seventy-five years ago in that on various occasions we have encountered movements designed to destroy free society and with that the right to heresy. And these movements distinguish them selves from the revolutionary movements of old in not being outspoken and honest in their declaration that they wish to substitute a different kind ofsociety, but they have taken a conspiratorial form. The heretic is a man who honestly defends unpopular ideas and prepares to take the
5 6 Russell summer 1985 Hook and Russell on liberal civilization 7
consequences for it. The conspirator is one who works by stealth, who minor government posts, in which a man's opinions really don't come in, works outside the rules of the game and today, as in the Fascist and the and it doesn't very much matter what they are; in the important posts I Communist movements, works on behalf of a foreign power which has agree it does matter. declared its purpose as being the destruction ofliberal civilization, which Hook: Oh, I would go beyond that, Mr. Russell. There was a case of it regards as decadent. And I maintain that our moral obligation in Judith Coplon in the United States who had a very humble post as clerk political life is to the toleration ofdissent, no matter how heretical, not to in the Department of Justice, and she was in a position where she had the toleration of conspiracy, no matter how disguised; and our practical access to a great deal of very important information. I imagine the man problem is to find ways of implementing that distinction. But I would even who empties the trash-paper basket in the atomic energy plant, like to know whether you accept this distinction between heresy, to although he doesn't make policy, would certainly not qualify for his post which I say yes, and conspiracy, to which I say no. if he was a member of the Communist Party. Don't you? Russell: Yes, up to a point I accept it. I'm not quite sure but what I Russell: Well, I should entirely agree about that, yes, certainly, where should go even further than you do in the way of things not to be thereis a real danger. But there are quite a number of things where there tolerated. I should say, for example, that ifthere were a political doctrine isn't any gre;n danger, of which the chief tenet was the assassination of the heads ofstates, that Hook: I agree. you would have a certain right to suppress that doctrine, in so far as it Russell: and where you don't need to bother. went in for assassination. Hook: Like Veterans' Relief, for example. Hook: Only in so far as there was a clear and present danger that some Russell: And, of course, I suppose, in so far as you and I, Hook, are would carry out the assassination. not in agreement, it isn't on a principle, but on the degree of damage to Russell: Quite. So that I don't think that it's altogether the distinction liberty which is worthwhile. And there I think we probably do disagree. I between a conspiracy and a doctrine. And I should go further and say mean I think this, that even supposing that a man is a heretic and a conspirator, you Hook: Yes. ought to be able to distinguish his conspiratorial activities from his other Russell: we should-I should say that it's worthwhile running real activities, and allow him his other activities, and only catch him up when risks in order to preserve a certain amount of liberty. you find him being a conspirator. Hook: I would agree with that. But you see, if you put it in terms of Hook: I agree with you. That is to say, that if a man professes Fascist degree, then we would have to discuss specific cases. We are committed ideas, or if he professes Communist ideas, I think that he should be primarily, as liberals, to a belief in freedom and to those institutions treated as a heretic, and be given an opportunity to present them in the which make freedom vital. Then we must also, if we leave that, be market-place of opinion. But if he joins an organization with a declared concerned with the security of those institutions. And then from case to objective of infiltrating into strategic posts In the government, if he case we have to make certain decisions. But we need certain principles to assumes a Party name and then professes to be something different, then guide us in making these decisions, and too often-we find people sub I should say that he is a conspirator-not necessarily a political con stituting just slogans for analysis. It's not enough to say one believes in spirator, but that he is playing outside the rules of the game in the freedom, and not enough to say one believes in security; one must try to particular profession or the particular branch ofthe service in which he is work out a set of operating principles implemented by human beings, to be found. I would say that a conspirator would be treated, then, and intelligent human beings we hope, that would maximize the amount differently from a heretic. For example, as far as government service is of freedom in a society and the amount of security. concerned, it is true that a man's ideas would have to be taken into Russell: Yes. You see, I think that the moment you allow that certain accountifhe had a policy-makingpost. Butleaving that outfor a moment: infringements of liberty are permissible, which I do admit in the if a person was a conspirator and owed a primary allegiance to a foreign theory-the moment you allow that, and the moment you put your policy government, then I should agree with Mr. Attlee, who substantially once into the hands ofutterly ignorant and brutal people (which you will have said that a primary allegiance to a foreign government renders a man unfit to do if it is to be apractical policy), in that moment you make it quite for service in his own. certain that very grave evils will result that you never intended. Russell: Well, I think that's perfectly true. If you're thinking of posts Hook: Do you believe that it's inevitable that ignorant and brutal in which the man can influence, there are a great many government posts, people implement such a policy? I have to some extent, not altogether, I. 9
a a
a a
a
to
to
in
of
all to
be are the
the the
out
the
the
part
had
The
most have their
of inter
espe Party use way,
mean say
break wide don't
of
make
out
in to
even as
10,000
I
but
to
has democ
that
the
cashier,
point
us out orders
to
or that
which
a it would may
field.
to let's when
completely very man which
of
the constitute is,
have example,
told
today, sufficient
a employing
that
civilization
another
to
to
the
business days, think hire are
be under him
for
not
authority
not I was
it
destruction view,
allegiance
where Most movement
And confidence? to group
Communist
warfare of
business, the to
result
are he activities
do himself', a
for
security,
different
catch liberal
No, three government; government,
be
put
subservient in
present of America
a
and
that to
mass
intent, their to
superior
or another,
on
who
The workers
the
they to in
the
similar
of
which atomic is me wanted
or private
sometimes
reason for of a is
position
in
two trust wait from
owe
in a
American
a in should
hold,
threat
objection
The exposing
let
Communist engages
you is considered. right to be not
a side out
it member of
persecution.
people
Russell
had
to
completely
the where
use a though
is there
society
who alarming.
my
in
government. firms the
group
where one that
to
may
only
and a
Well,
~hole was
ought
man States.
But which fact, declaration
the even propaganda. should
for
50,000 of
a
that then not
told know, Suppose
instruments position
illustration power
have
evil, the many
American
Russell, one
constitute the
if
a
Hook
continues justified over say
and or
they an
on
was
have
the out, you
thing. the
cashier to
line,
United
is
that field.
victory Communist good that
activity, now-"without
political.
frightening, he not as government And
say
member
a
and
take it should grant,
you foreign
development take
this
positions, a
the Party them
the
of wrong
to
If
certainly so not
the
he where
regard access
think Party special mean
think
is me
in
if Now, I that movement-in don't which
a doctrines out
their in agree. should do were another
that
would merely
I holds, keep
quoting I
they
let
in
is the
in may
another to
think from its to
and
secret.
don't
strategic
out.
still
roots you
which man
I threaten not
But
to
and
for
a to view,
conspiratorial rather,
correctly
moment, Well, would
Now
but people
Communist
if
man point
Kremlin.
You
danger I into
is find
Church
power
a
from a
mass discovered think
that.
places;
activity,
any attitude
to I the
universities,
name,
international
actual But,
to
of
society,
no
at
of public
government you
15,000
an something
Russell: the
Hook:
Russell: Hook:
Communists Americans of has American not indifferent ests infiltrate domestic reached relationship cially, out week's or Kremlin
the spread of sorts some police exclude political Catholic do agree Communist Catholic. ratic view. secret class-room~I'm propaganda professional, Russell, and
. .
I
at is
in
the
the of
our and
the for
is.
not have
the
have fol the
else,
with
intel
apply news which In it Now, ill
Most worst
think
Com
that which
of experi
there
know
denied
that perhaps
further
to
regards exists
as
will
files, you who
impres
that
rules of
room
the
as
judgement
example,
safeguards,
think you
they
we And the
the thing. whereas
Act
from just the him
policemen. been no posts
from
point.
and
as
together
anything fear
repeal
hearing.
the in
that
is to For a
an in
But the necessarily European
essential
a
safeguards heartening these
security
and it the is think to of have
draw it.
think the
under than
of
I I
the
discovering
there
such
of
such the
hopes learning
moment
nonetheless, servants. conspiracy up
ignorant
danger,
or
Americans
some
are that
if of of society then turned who
Britain.
ill
a of in
don't more as
nature
by
that
eminence,
and intelligently, But
as information-not
advocating, Russell,
impossible civil
mean,
had
have
information
only
task
for
absence
I exists-it
I
it
have I the Though some there
in think
not some
Great
they
it true great
just
the Mr.
domestic
but
the
in counsel
if
more But is
fact opinions so
activity heresy a
whole
and
that
and And Americans
time
upon that
it
counsel. intelligently, democratic
is
amendment which In makes them.
pursue
do,
but think
information, Britain if
about of a
the more, have
Europe intellectual intelligent
find
Act;
found
unpleasant
given to Not Act.
nearly
to most little
I despite
of to the
peers
have do,
on you
more
a
you they told
is between
heretical which
not
the
Great to to
American not
course,
successful. like
that
granted
he
is
not do; in amount and Because their
develop
are
often, of with access
disappear. so movement Western
point
man
with
is
I'd
whole, surprise
right
by
a
or
McCarran
in ought been
excessive. of
depends
recent think
a
not 1985 considerable
will
home
very more
must
it
which
agree is to
my
man
opportunity the men States of
is government Immigration Americans, But
distinction
undertake of
at the
a which,
not
has that in
act
have
it
however, to
one up
To
on
who the
the Americans
nature
people do rules this
he
of
think
men
I
this
that. considerable way
as critics has Communist
judgment
other in are.
of employment.
summer United past
that Well,
to a the
things
couldn't
policy,
Yes, America perhaps of a
eminent
I
the given
it
of hearings
Oh,
the States, one in
the don't
into in
the
be policy-making
the
danger
I
visa about difficult
followed.
in not
spent in
some perceived, of that
Russell
that
is the
Russell:
the
Hook:
Russell:
Hook:
8 been admired exist United security he enough-and administrators are personnel conclusion
nothing these ence.
one lectuals is which applying should have millions McCarran-Walter
provisions that
visas differ
implications government conspirators involve lows conspirators munism liberal-minded Communism
that
sion 10 Russell summer 1985 Hook and Russell on liberal civilization II declared its intention of, oh, piecemeal expropriating its employers. bers of the Communist Party very rarely will admit openly that they are Now, would you wait until you detected the man in the act of rifling the members of the Communist Party. till, or would you say: "Now look here, ifyou're a member ofthat group Russell: Now look here. voluntarily, then I think you're not professionally qualified for this post. Hook: Just one other point. There's one other great difference. I do We won't send you to jail for it, but find some otheremployment, but not not believe that Catholic priests should be employed by the government as a cashier." in any position which requires policy-making. And I do not believe that Russell: Yes, I think that would be perfectly valid in that case. But Catholic -priests should be employed as teachers in public schools. Do there is a general feeling, I think, in America that all Communists, or all you? people who belong to the Communist Party, are much more constantly Russell: Well, I don't like to see them in those posts, but I should engaged in conspiracy than in fact they are. Some of the intellectual certainly not make a law to prevent them from being there. I shouldn't Communists do very little conspiring. dream of it. I want to make another point, which is this: that all that has Hook: Well, I think to a certain extent you are right, but ifyou studied been done in America has been to catch out people who avow that they the statutes of membership in the Communist Party you'll discover that are Communists. And the methods that are employed by the McCarran they have a control commission which purges its ranks every six months Act or what not catch out those who avow it, and don't catch out those ofthe year on the ground ofinactivity or disobedience. And I should like who don't, and that is one of the sillinesses of it. to read just a small exchange between Mr. Browder, who was then head Hook: Well, on the contrary, Mr. Russell, there are very few people ofthe Communist Party, and a member ofCongress on this. The Central who do avow that they are Communists. I sometimes have been tempted Control Commission of the Communist Party in the past, when it was to say, ifonly you could find a person in the United States in recent years safe, used to publish a list of the members who had been dropped. And who in answer to a question, "Are you a member of the Communist the question to Mr. Browder was the following: "In numerous instances Party?", would reply, "Yes, and I'm proud of it." Why, it's so different we have a notation of the Central Control Commission that the expelled from what the old Socialist and Communist movements used to be. You member 'refused to carry out decisions.' That is in line with your recall the concluding sentence of Marx's Communist Manifesto, where explanation of the relationship between the Communist Party of the Marx says we refuse to conceal our views and publicly proclaim such and United States and the Comintern?" Browder: "Exactly." "A member such. But every member of the Communist Party who's been asked must carry out all decisions ofthe Party or be expelled from the Party?" is whether he is a member, who has been asked "Have you engaged in the next question. The Chairman asks: "Is that correct, Mr. Browder?" espionage or in sabotage?", has replied: "I refuse to answer that question Mr. Browder says: "Yes, that is correct." Mr. Starnes: "A Party member on the ground that my truthful answer would tend to incriminate me." does not have any latitude or discretion on the matter-he has to carry Russell: Well, now, that seems to me to bear out, what I've been very out orders?" Mr. Browder: "The Party member has to carry out or much criticized for saying, that there is a reign of terror in America, ders."1 Now ifthis is true, isn't there a presumptive evidence that a man because in England the Communists I know avow that they are Com who is in the Communist Party, under instructions to do something munists quite openly and make no bones about it. dishonourable, will carry out those orders? Hook: There is another interpretation possible. It might be that in the Russell: In what respect, and I should like you to explain this, in what United States, instead ofthis being evidence as [to] a reign ofterror, that respect does a member of the Communist Party differ from, say, a the Communist movement is a conspiratorial movement, and they do not Catholic priest? Is there any difference? dare to tell the truth. I am confident, well I'm not confident, but I wonder Hook: Yes, in terms of the kinds of authoritarianism for which they whether an Englishman or a member of the English Communist Party, if stand. That's the first difference. The second difference is that a Catholic asked "Have you engaged in espionage against your own government?", priest, in my experience, is usually open in his beliefs. He calls himselfa would reply, "I refuse to answer on the ground that my truthful answer Catholic priest, and he doesn't call himself a Unitarian; whereas mem- would tend to incriminate me"? Now, ifhe answered that, I wouldn't say that was a sign ofterror going on. I would say that this is a presumption, Russell: Yes. I Quoted in Sidney Hook, Heresy, "Yes," Conspiracy, "No" (New York: John Day, 1953), pp.28-9· Hook: a presumption that the man has something to hide. a
in
13 as as to
by by
the
the
is
one
you
same these
thing
other
be
point. to Sidney
I'm
all
time
Britain Franco
alliance
by
the
although there the although 3
prepared
just
confusing disastrous, when
my
defined
that
recording
civilization came
addition
with
long on our
be with would is
tape
is
general
Great
a that
with that
psychology
in
fear,
a
tape
are civilization
isn't the
times
theory fear
for you're of
to
say
his liberal
the
would
them
of in when Russell,
support
of
they alliance in are I
yourself that
live believe
Corporation.
against
people
programme
liberal
from
think
come
approving
say me,
the I
that
hold would
hold
ally
also
on
I
with,
to as
nature
of
I This
not
There McCarthyism
people
atmosphere
position
many
you may if
the
don't
proofread
produced
they'll
Hitler. I'm
such
atmosphere
fear.
are on
this
seems
that
Transcribed think-to Russell
issue. when
that
that of
instructions; I they
they
disagree Russell. Broadcasting It
the
were
.
evil.
and
took 1953.
consequence it,
there
think And against
Blackwell;
And
And
provided terrible, true a
circumstances
those
means
for
if British
you
political lesser McCarthyism. Lenin,
heartily
are programme It
Hook
quoting, then Bertrand
although
I
a
state. a
else,
a
Union force. the of
by
faced.
have that's institutions. atmosphere
Kenneth
with-I to September of
and
certain that
of think Stalin
been
by
be
an
25
with
up grounds
same
police whom
to
they given
to
Soviet guilty
on
think
a
Hook
freedom,
policy
Kai-shek. I don't
under
edited the
anywhere
end
are
studios
listening
the issue I a you've BBC has are
against
of
democratic
to
and
certain exaggeration,
know but
the
under
of you
with
evils
been I that
Sidney
Well,
with
Tito
who be
as
or consequences Well, for
Chiang of
which
want
totalitarian, London
Dr.
Walker
lived
I instructions, a
have
has
may itself
recognize
views
sort
Franco;
the is
with
it
atmosphere
Russell:
support
Hook:
Russell: You
philosophical
Recorded Cheryl Hook.
3
Those having an virulence which same and and same there side. allied must a to with Tito problem McCarthy oppposed irresponsible strengthening between
from
a
is I
is
to
to
or
a
the
no
this the and
you
the
and
And
IS,
will avow in
Now of legal they if
more
And in
proof
them,
in
up-is
it. 'legal' want
want
that
mainly Britain,
attitude attitude
not
is not
without no govern were
it
in
them But
for every
is ...
liberal
revolution what
questions
of not character understand work,
and
this
they
this was
will
I educational,
organize
will. question Great Republican
day. think
keep
freest, the acute do
there
engaged
a I to
not up
As
there
proclaim in and more necessary
these
to side. against form conspiracy.
the
is illegal
the
membership
they movements. next formed which
in
least they
of
from necessary
between
have
was you. that
keep
is
be
organizations
want
whom with
the
other
taken
there even
Russell,
avow answer
light
publicly
quotes)
activity, all point, if
they you
with
today Communists suspicion, cooperative, conspiratorial
be
Democrat, engage
to
the
he
than instructions if legal
England heretical if
In
a because the
particularly (in
this,
my
country
less will
should
no
anti-Communists,
on the not struggle
a In will is
is, issue
absolutely
because
will
it's ask of
distinguish
silly
have understand if differs
refuse
and it
other is
it countries, authorities
Now stand they
Lenin,
America
that
were
class
military,
take if but
it you
not combine work
all would
evading
they
less
in
Party.
they to
if
attitude
[is],
the to
rather from elsewhere.
conspiratorial would
avow
do
from attitude
are
measures
"In
is,
think and there
freedom;
that in
when
that
Communists
grow
have
I Illegal
feel that and movement and one
not
if
this
England. groups."2 Because
activity,
you in belief
non-democratic
to of
say
to
Communist conspirators, says:
industrial, will ....
by belief in
or
see, passage
that p_ast
say his 1985 will
that
sense
reason
Communists
I He correlative
Communist the
secret his
You police,
engaged
sorry
matured
these
the
begin 23. believe nuclei
even
activities-doesn't you
the
the
systematically
Communists the
they youa
what
the The
may
the p.
of that also
I'm
or
in
Communist
what
to conspiratorial, have
saying
character
of
You way
fully
summer (political,
they Party.
the person. their information.
imagined
But
isn't but
encouraged
conspiratorial
Party expose
Well,
the
are democratic
Well,
Hook,
organizations
are ...
navy,
Now, read know
they naturally protective
has a
to
the
in
that I
groups
have
Catholic, to
how
as
public the there
Socialist avow
associates.
Russell a They
you
democratic,
largely
because groups is 'peaceful'
a
movements
illegal
time
Hook:
Russell:
like
Russell:
Hook:
Quoted
12
man Communist
membership
whether conceal activity, 2 their
not make ask even
that should too. ary though very
conspiratorial when o(suspicion.
you, attempts
more I'd authoritative the army, and Communist and exception sports),
open positive regard . ment. conspiratorial