Saint-Simon’s vision: towards a scientifically organised society
Saint-Simon’s philosophy of history (particularly as in Du systeme industriel, 1820-22) is important for an understanding of what Saint-Simon thought a scientifically organised society would be.
History, and notably European history, was seen as the succession of two phases: one “organic”, the other “critical”. This fundamental distinction was developed later by his followers (Bazard et al. 1831, 79; 138-41).An organic phase is characterised by harmony, consistency and peace. Individuals spontaneously subscribe to the values and principles of the whole. There is no conflict, no contradiction whatsoever between society’s moral foundations and individual beliefs, convictions and aspirations. Individuals as a whole share the same approach to public interest, to common wealth and happiness. By contrast, a critical phase of history is characterised by a spirit of opposition and contradiction: protest and dispute spread in society, and individuals are less and less inclined to share the common values of the whole. Doubts and challenging questions intensify and undermine the basis and usefulness of the leading principles of society, initiating a process of disintegration. While the organic phase represents a “synthetic” moment in history, the critical phase represents an “analytical” moment (Picon 2002, 51). For Saint-Simon, in modern times European society had been engaged in an analytic process favouring the advent of industrialism.
For Saint-Simon, a “feudal and theological system” emerged in the eleventh century ([1819-20] 2012, 2165), placing temporal power in the hands of the “nobility of the sword”, while spiritual power was held by the Christian clergy. Political power was enforced by the military, by brute force, and spiritual power rested on “metaphysics”, a form of thinking fundamentally opposed to experimental knowledge.
However, another system was concealed within feudal society: if initially extremely weak and inactive, its potential for development was limitless:in the eleventh century, just when the old system was becoming thoroughly established, the components of a new social organisation had appeared. These involved the industrial capacities (related to the emancipation of towns) of temporal power; and the scientific abilities (result from the introduction of positive sciences into Europe by the Arabs) of spiritual power.
([1819-20] 2012, 2168)
These new powers progressively replaced those of the ruling European feudal orders. Furthermore, during this transition the very concept of power was replaced by that of “ability”, that is, the entire set of an individual’s non-interchangeable competences, talents and skills. In the emerging new system human relationships were no longer based on the logic of domination: instead, the logic of association prevailed. Individuals become associated beings; they learn to combine, and associate their particular abilities in a movement towards “universal association”. Society becomes more active, more dynamic. Saint-Simon talked of a transition from a “solid” status to a “fluid one” (Musso 2020, 42-6). As he noted in his Introduction aux travaux scientifiques du XIXe siecle (1807-1808), “all phenomena result from the struggle between solids and fluids” ([1807-1808] 2012, 374). During the transition process (fluidification), society had to overcome the rigidities (solidities) which divided its components (the abilities) in the older organisation and prevented them from associating. In this transition process all abilities find increased opportunities for communication and combination.
Of course, such a fluidification process is extremely long. The first signs of the emerging system had been present since the eleventh century. However, the transition process really began with the introduction of positive sciences into Europe: “The Europeans rejected the Arabs’ politics but accepted their scientific leadership” ([1807-1808] 2012, 391).
This constituted a first step towards a society where, progressively, reason replaces force and labour prevails over conquest. “For a nation as well as for an individual, there are only two goals for activity: either conquest or labor, together with their spiritual counterparts: blind belief, or scientific demonstration based on positive observations” ([1820-22] 2012, 2347). From the sixteenth century onwards European society sank into a violent and destructive phase of criticism: the analytic approach to reality, the will to analyse, to confront and challenge its political, moral, spiritual choices.Saint-Simon considered “labour versus conquest” to be one of the greatest dilemmas mankind had ever faced. The very foundations of the former system, based on force and conquest, were confronted by reason and labour. The French Revolution, with its “Terror” phase, is presented as the apex of this painful but necessary process. He argued that Modern Europe could now replace the nobility and the military with industrial entrepreneurs, and the clergy with scientists and artists. From this point of view the achievement of the Revolution proved to be completely emancipatory, overcoming the errors, superstitions and illusions of the past.
But this achievement remained a purely negative one: analytic work alone is unfruitful. A society cannot survive long when its foundations are constantly challenged. Time had come to fill the “abyss of revolutions” (a widely used phrase at that time), to put an end to this analytic phase and achieve the synthetic endeavour for which Europe was eagerly waiting. Saint-Simon and the Saint-Simonians believe they had been called by God himself to build this new organic society. It was however a delicate issue. The concern was not a refusal of the analytic moment. The scientific approach is fundamentally analytic, and understanding a phenomenon calls for the separation and distinction of its inner components. The revolutionary period had ignored the need for synthesis, the need for bringing together what had been separated. The critical phase failed to acknowledge the vital importance of religion (see below).
Non-violence was the basic principle in a transition towards a new organic society, without conflict or destruction. The only weapons to which Saint-Simon and the Saint-Simonians admitted recourse were “persuasion” and “demonstration” ([1825] 2012, 3219).[217] Shifting towards a world ruled by reason and science by means of violent acts, of revolutions and rebellions, was contradictory. Reason and science should be the obvious choice, one perfect truth unlikely to be challenged. The shift “from heavenly to earthly morals” ([1816—18] 2012, 1577) must be achieved through general consent. The Saint-Simonian movement was always against revolutionary and authoritarian socialism. Even the democratic regime was not to their liking; a scientifically organised society needs no public debate, since debate involves conflicting interests. No such conflicting interests are likely within a social context where the rulers and the ruled are equally informed and enlightened by science. Science renders any contradiction between public and private interests irrelevant and impossible. Saint-Simonians could conceive of the existence of industrialism within a monarchy, since the respective interests of sovereign and manufacturers are unlikely to differ if both have been enlightened by science. “His Majesty will necessarily come to the conclusion that there is no other way to quietly apply royal power in France than governing for the manufacturers and with the manufacturers” ([1820—22] 2012, 2367).What will the political structure of the new organic system - industrialism - be like once the transition process is fully achieved? First of all, the British system - its House of Commons - should be the new model for the state, after “correcting” the “radical flaw” ([1819-20] 2012, 2314) in its composition. Instead of being idle landowners or civil servants, the members of this House - the essential task of which would be to vote on taxation - must be active and creative citizens.
It is in the nation’s interest that the members of this House be men whose personal interest lies in making taxes as light as possible, however the great majority of the members of the English House of Commons is more interested in increasing rather than reducing taxes.... [Therefore] the membership of the House of Commons should be composed of the leaders of different kinds of industrial labour, since they are those most interested in thrifty public expenditure, and are the most opposed to arbitrariness.
([1819-20] 2012, 2134-5)
Two specific Houses should be created within the House of Commons. The first one would be called the House of Invention, composed of three hundred worthy members divided into three sections: one of “two hundred civil engineers”, another
of “fifty poets and other inventors in literature”, and the last of “twenty-five painters, fifteen sculptors or architects and ten musicians” ([1819—20] 2012, 2136). In its first year this House should propose one ambitious “public works project undertaken in order to increase France’s wealth and improve its inhabitants’ lot regarding all aspects of utility and pleasure” ([1819—20] 2012, 2137). In addition to its primary mission, this House should also develop several projects for public celebrations, such as festivals of “hope” and “remembrance”.
The second House - called the House of Examination - should be of three hundred members: two hundred physicists and one hundred mathematicians ([181920] 2012, 2138). It would be charged with examining the projects proposed by the House of Invention, and developing a general project for public education in all matters useful for future citizens - apart from religion, which was to be left to the free choice of individuals ([1819-20] 2012, 2139). Like the House of Invention, it would also propose projects for public celebrations, such as “festivals for men, for women, boys, girls, fathers and mothers, children, foremen, and workers”. Finally, this House “shall be in charge of setting up taxes and having them collected” ([1819-20] 2012, 2140).
Obviously, this new Constitution expresses Saint- Simon’s main concern: that the sciences and arts should move forward hand in hand to create a new, scientifically organised, society.Saint-Simon was aware that the hope for such a rationally organised society might sound utopian. This was because, he noted, any superficial appraisal is incapable of seeing what is hidden behind the immediacy of reality. On closer consideration, it seems that this new system is “the necessary result of the path mankind has been following for seven to eight centuries... it is no utopia” ([1819-20] 2012, 2140). Here we see again Saint-Simon’s approach to history as a ceaseless transition process. Modern European history, through its own developments, progressively sets the conditions for the new system. All of the innovations required to establish the new system are to be found in the evolutionary process of modern history.[218]
There is no such thing as creating a system of social organisation: we notice a newly arising chain of ideas and interests and make it conspicuous, nothing more... I, for one, have not built up the Constitutional project, of which I have shown the fundamentals. It has been achieved by the work of all European people during the eight preceding centuries. Not everyone might have yet seen this because the facade of the still-existing ancient social structure continues to conceal it.
([1819-20] 2012, 2202)
Saint-Simon was convinced that the new system he announced followed the logic of historical necessity. The epigraph of Le producteur is his: “The golden age, which blind tradition has hitherto placed in the past, lies before us”.
3.