EUROPEAN civilisation, I have repeated more than once, has automatically
brought about the rebellion of the masses. From one view-point this fact
presents a most favourable aspect, as we have noted: the rebellion of the masses
is one and the same thing as the fabulous increase that human existence has
experienced in our times. But the reverse side of the same phenomenon is
fearsome; it is none other than the radical demoralisation of humanity. Let us
now consider this last from new view-points. -
1. The substance or character
of a new historical period is the resultant of internal variations- of man and
his spirit; or of external variations- formal, and as it were mechanical.
Amongst these last, the most important, almost without a doubt, is the
displacement of power. But this brings with it a displacement of the spirit. Consequently,
when we set about examining a period with a view to understanding it, one of our
first questions ought to be: who is governing in the world at the time? It may
happen that at the time humanity is scattered in different groups without any
communication, forming interior, independent worlds. In the days of Miltiades,
the Mediterranean world was unaware of the existence of the Far-Eastern world.
In such cases we shall have to refer our question, "Who rules in the
world?" to each individual group. But from the XVIth Century, humanity has
entered on a vast unifying process, which in our days has reached its furthest
limits. There is now no portion of humanity living apart- no islands of human
existence. Consequently, from that century on, it may be said that whoever rules
the world does, in fact, exercise authoritative influence over the whole of it.
Such has been the part played by the homogeneous group formed by European
peoples during the last three centuries. Europe was the ruler, and under its
unity of command the world lived in unitary fashion, or at least was
progressively unified. This fashion of existence is generally styled the Modern
Age, a colourless, inexpressive name, under which lies hidden this reality: the
epoch of European hegemony. By
"rule" we are not here to understand primarily the exercise of
material power, of physical coercion. We are here trying to avoid foolish
notions, at least the more gross and evident ones. This stable, normal relation
amongst men which is known as "rule" never rests on force; on the
contrary, it is because a man or group of men exercise command that they have at
their disposition that social apparatus or machinery known as "force."