THE FUTURE
399
As
against this perruclOus doctrine, which the world owed to the
naive optimism of the French Enlightenment, and to the early liberals
and humanists generally, the mature skepticism of a sadder and wiser
generation of academic Whigs has returned us to the Burkean faith
in empirical perception of what is immediately known through ex–
perience and tradition. Instead of pursuing the vain dream of a
theory of history (not to mention a science of society) we recover
solid ground through the study of what is accomplished by individuals
in the actual pursuit of their daily tasks.
So far the doctrine, which-as I hav,e said-has become the
credo of contemporary liberalism. The trouble is that when one
studies it in the light of present-day circumstances. one comes up
against a difficulty. Suppose we do start from what is observable;
then what do we find? Surely that empiricism does not work. It is
all very well to inveigh against "that
hubris
of collectivism which
aims at 'conscious direction' of all forces of society." The fact is
that "conscious direction" has become possible, and is being practised,
though frequently with disastrous results. What seems to be the matter
is that technological power has accumulated and is being used in
irrational ways over huge areas of contemporary life, by people who
very precisely have no sense at
all
of the historical situation in
which they are caught up.
Only
consider the riot of nationalist
exaltation among the newly emancipated countries, at a time when
the nation-state has plainly become an anachronism. A universally
accepted philosophy of history might tell these people that their
behavior is potentially dangerous to themselves and others. But to
grasp this notion they would have to acknowledge that valid per–
ception of universal statements about history is possible. Why should
they do this as long as fashionable sages tell them that there is no
"science of society," that the idea of a "philosophy of history" is an
idle dream, and in short that history is not an intelligible totality
held together in the last resort by the fact that it is the same for all men?
If
nothing fundamental can be learned from the past, why bother
about the future?
If
we are not on a curve whose shape can be
plotted with reasonable certainty, why trouble about the direction in
which we are moving? Above
all,
why try to control it? Control is
possible
only
if there are regularities which can be grasped by the
