TSYETAN TODOROY
583
upon-thus, determinism neutralizes the effects offreedom.
A similar shift can be observed in Renan's reflections on race. He con–
demns the biological determinism propounded by contemporary thinkers on
the subject such as Gobineau, saying that human populations are by now too
intermingled for us to accurately determine the effect of any particular
"blood," and that, in any case, language and culture have a far greater influ–
ence on behavior than physical make-up. However, what Renan is actually
criticizing here is not determinism per se but the type of determinism in–
voked: he would rather it be cultural than biological, but its action is no less
decisive for all that. "All the findings of modern science lead us to consider
each race as being confined to a given type which it mayor may not fully
realize, but from which it cannot break free." Though the word race is to be
taken here in a moral rather than a physical sense, it nonetheless implies that
Kant and Goethe were already present in the soul of primitive Teutons, and
that Africans can never attain the summits ofcivilization.
In accordance with its basic principle, the triumph of freedom over de–
terminism, humanism refuses to subordinate what ought be to what is-and,
therefore, ethics to science (whether the latter is labelled "biology" or
"history" ). Renan also takes care to distinguish between the two, if only to
ensure that science has cast off the shackles of religion. He adds the following
observation, however: in modern times, science is advancing at a stupefYing
rate; religion, morals, and metaphysics, on the other hand, are constantly
losing ground. Given this-and the fact that events are in any case entirely
predetermined by the interaction of their constituent forces-is it not self-evi–
dent that we should ask science rather than ethics to dictate our behavior?
To take the particular example of race: both Christian and humanitarian
morality would have it that all races deserve the same respect; science, on
the other hand (and for Renan, this means history rather than biology)
"proves" that the darker races are inferior to the the lighter ones, and that,
within the latter, the Semites are inferior to the Indo-Europeans. What atti–
tude should one adopt in the face of this disagreement? One has no choice but
to submit to factual necessity-that is to say, the verdict of science; Renan
utters not so much as a word of regret for the "half-savage" races extermi–
nated by the passage of the Aryans, and envisages the future destruction of
the "Semitic phenomenon" with the utmost
calm.
Here, ethics are subordinate
to science-that is the second point on which scientism is at odds with hu–
manism.
It is not, however, the last. Whereas, for Enlightenment philosophers,
reason had to break free from religious faith, Renan's scientism leads to the
eventual reconciliation of reason and faith-with science, the emblem of ra–
tionality, itself becoming the object of a cult.
As
of his very first book,
The
