committed myself to an oversimpli–
fied rationalistic view. It was as if
in the Enlightenment I had as–
sumed that religion was to be un–
derstood as nothing but a hoax put
over on the people by fraudulent
magician-priests.
This sort of inadequate rational–
ism, this assumption that only prac–
tical ends are being sought by the
extreme actions we condemn, is
likely to mark and defeat our at–
tempts to understand the authori–
tarian state. To counteract this I
am going to suggest that we con–
sider the question of intellectual
tyranny not only in the specific
Russian context but also in two
other contexts. One context is the
whole tendency of modern Western
culture. The other context is our
private selves.
I do not suggest this shift in
context in order to check in the
least our horror and indignation at
the specific Russian situation. I
haven't the slightest intention of
implying that we have no right to
judge Russia because "our own
hands are not clean." My reason
for the suggestion is simply this:
when we encounter extremes of
action which we hate and fear, we
are inclined to believe that they
are wholly discontinuous with our
own traditional ways, and certain–
ly that they are discontinuous with
ourselves; I think that only by sur–
rendering the illusion of discontin–
uity will we realize and grasp the
Russian situation.
Since the French Revolution the
718
organization of Western society has
increasingly become an organiza–
tion on the basis of ideas. A cen–
tury and a half ago that statement
would have been an unqualifiedly
cheerful one. Even twenty-five
years ago it would have had only
a happy implication. But today we
must regard the statement with at
least ambivalence. We know now
that ideas grow into ideologies and
that ideologies are seldom benign,
that ideas are indeed instrumental
but that they contrive concentra–
tion camps quite as readily as hos–
pitals. It would indeed
be
foolish
to abandon all that we learned
from Marx about the material and
historical conditions of ideas. Yet
we can no longer think that ideas
and ideologies are nothing but the
"facades" of raw materialistic de–
sires. Nor can we now believe that
ideas are only instrumental. They
are not perfectly autonomous, but
neither are they subordinate to
certain aims in view. Nor are they
likely to be cynically contrived to
mask the meaning of deeds-one
has but to read Goebbels' diaries to
be convinced that the most vicious
idealogue is likely to be sincere,
intellectual and, in his own mind,
virtuous.
The attachment to explicit ideas
which is characteristic of our cul–
ture today is forming new class
structures and new sub-cultures.
And its results must make us un–
easy. Compare the Wallace move–
ment with any earlier populist
movement in America and you will
