💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › ruth-kinna-kropotkin-and-huxley.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:40:02. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Kropotkin and Huxley Author: Ruth Kinna Date: 1992 Language: en Topics: Pëtr Kropotkin, mutual aid, evolution, science Source: Retrieved on 10th November 2021 from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467–9256.1992.tb00214.x Notes: Published in Politics 12(2), 42–47. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9256.1992.tb00214.x
In September 1890 the anarchist Peter Kropotkin issued the first of a
series of articles investigating the principles of Darwinian evolution.
Later supplemented by two other sets of essays this series was published
under the tide of Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution.[1]
In his introduction to Mutual Aid, Kropotkin identifies the Russian
biologist, Kessler, as the inspiration for the development of his
evolutionary theory. It was Kessler, he claims, who impressed upon him
the symbiotic aspects of natural selection and who alerted him to the
‘corruption’ of Darwin’s hypothesis by Victorian ‘social darwinists’.
Kropotkin‘s elaboration of Kessler’s thesis begins with a refutation of
social darwinism and T.H. Huxley serves as the target of his attack.
Kropotkin devotes little space to the discussion of Huxley’s ideas. Yet
his dispute with Huxley has played a central role in modem evaluations
of Kropotkin‘s theory of mutual aid. Most contemporary writers
understand his assault on Huxley as a
signal of his desire to bridge the gap between moral development and
natural evolution.[2] This essay examines the cogency of this view and
argues that it fails to make sense of Kropotkin‘s work. The paper
divides into four parts: it begins with an outline of Kropotkin’s
critique of Huxley and then discusses various modem assessments of
Kropotkin‘s work The third section examines Kropotkin‘s rejection of
Hwrley in the context of these assessments. The final part demonstrates
the weakness of the existing interpretations and suggests an alternative
read of Kropotkin’s dispute with Huxley.
Kropotkin’s critique of Huxley focuses on the essay, ‘The struggle for
existence’ (Huxley, 1888). Quoting selectively from this article,
Kropotkin accuses Huxley of reducing Darwin’s notion of the struggle ‘to
its narrowest limits’. As one of the ‘ablest exponents of the theory of
evolution’ Huxley conceives ‘the animal world as a world of perpetual
struggle among half-starved individuals, thirsting for one another’s
blood’. Huxley and his cohorts have, Kropotkin continues:
... made modem literature resound with the warcry ofwoe to the
vanquished, as ifit were the last word ofmodern biology. They raised the
’pltiless’ struggle for personal advantages to the height of a
biological principle which m a n must submit to as well, under the
menace of otherwise succumbing in a world based upon mutual
extermination (Kropotkin, 1890a, p.338).
Kropotkin compares ths representation of nature with Rousseau’s
portrayal of the primitive state and finds that Hwrley’s image is an
scientifically groundless as former’s hypothetical state of nature
(Kropotkin, 1890a, p.339). But it is also charmless: Hwrley’s vision,
Kropotkin suggests, is simply a restatement of the Hobbesian w a r of
each against all CKropotlun, 1891, p.539).
Kropotkin traces the source of Huxley’s error to his failure to
appreciate the fullness of Darwin’s conception of the ‘struggle for
existence’. In the Origin of Species, Kropotkin pointa out, Darwin
specifically widened this notion beyond the competitive individual fight
and describes the term as a metaphor. For Darwin, Kropotkin contents,
‘the struggle’ is one experienced by groups or species against the
ravages of nature. whilst in later editions of his work Darwin accepted
the applicability of Spencer’s epithet, Kropotkin argues that he never
congidered that the biologically ‘fittest’ were the most cunning or pow&
individuals. Contrary to Huxley, Darwin identified the fittest to be the
most sociable and cooperative groups (Kropotkin, 1890a, pp. 337–42.)
Implicitly recognising the contentiousness of his claims Kropotkin
explains the popular appeal of Huxley’s social darwinism by pointing to
the shortcominga of Darwin’s onginal work. Unfortunately, Kmpotkin
explains, Darwin was so eager to impress his general theory of natural
selection on his readers that he neglected to emphasise the importance
of his metaphorical conception of the ‘struggle’. Even more
unfortunately, Kropotkin adds, Darwin laboured at atime when the
biological proofs that he required to sustain his argument were lacking.
Moreover, though his work progressed to encompass a more co-operative
image of nature, Darwin himself became too ill to complete his
researches. Thus, Kropotkin argues, in order to provide his hypothesis
of natural selection with some theoretical backing Darwin was initially
forced to posit the Malthusian assumption of scarcity and he did not
live long enough to correct his mistake (Kropotkin, 1989a 1910).
Huxley’s representation of Darwin is not, Kropotkin concedes, without
foundation. But as an exposition based on the deficiencies of Darwin’s
work it is irredeemably flawed. In elaborating the theory of mutual aid,
Kropotkin assumes the Darwinian mantel in an effort to redress the
balance.
Mutual Aid advances a simple thesis of natural cooperation. The theory
does not deny the existence of competition within groups or species but
dectively ignores it. Kropotkin’s theory of mutual aid also diminishes
the importance of inter-species struggle (though, Kropotkin acknowledges
mankind’s aggressiveness to other animal life). Where Kropotkin allows
competition between groups he usually writea in favour of nature’s
‘underdogs’, showing how bands of the most feeble creatures can
effectively right off the fiercest predator, in order to reifmate the
importance of common action (Kropotkin, 1890b, pp.669–701)
Kropotkin sustains his argument with an intricately interwoven tapestry
of biological, anthropological, historical and sociological data. The
book divides into four sections. It begins with an account of animal
life. The Kropotkin presents studies of various ancient and modern
‘barbarian’ and ‘savage’ societies. In the third section he examines the
organisation of the medieval city-states. He concludes the study with an
account of the practice of mutual aid in the modern world.
Kropotkin’s layering of information is typical — works falling within
both the sociological and more strictly scientific traditions of the
Victorian era were classically interdisciplinary, fusing metaphysical
and political questions with scientific argument — though his message is
specifically anarchist. Modern authors have not ignored this interplay
between Kropotkin‘8 science and his politics but emphasis has been
placed on the work‘s biological underpinning.
Kropotkin’s theory has not been treated uncritically by modem writers
but it has enjoyed a generally warm reception. Criticism attaches to
Kropotkin‘s method and to the objectivity of his research (Baldwin,
1970; Woodcock and Avakumovic, 1950; Martin Miller, 1976). Kropotkin’s
fiercest critics also attack the naturalism of his approach (David
Miller, 1983; Walter, 1971). In spite of these acknowledged flaws the
theory of mutual aid is still regarded as being ‘scientific’ and
Kropotkin is widely feted for his achievement in estabhhmg anarchism on
a scientific basis (Mondolfo, 1930; G.D.H. Cole, 1954; Avrich, 1988).
Whilst Baldwin, for example, judges that ‘preconceptions’ colour large
parts of Mutual Aid he does not query the scientific value of the work
(Baldwin, pp.6–7). Woodcock‘s attitude is equally paradoxical: again
questioning Kropotkin’s objectivity he argues that his findmgs have been
validated by most modem biology and sociology (Woodcock, 1979, p.201).
Critics of anarchism similarly accord Kropotkin‘s work scientific
status, comparing the soundness of his reasoning to the apparently
muddleheaded rambling of Bakunin (Kelly, 1982, p.158). Avrich’s concise
assessment of Mutual Aid reflects the consensus:
Mutual Aid has become a classic. With the exception of his memoirs it is
his best known work and is widely regarded as his masterpiece... The
reasons are not hard to find. Mutual Aid is more than a contribution to
the theory of evolution ... it was his most successful attempt to
provide anarchist theory with a scientific foundation (Avrich, 1988,
p.59).
Mutual Aid
The good reputation that Mutual Aid enjoys cannot be explained with
reference to Kropotkin‘s dispute with Huxley alone. Some writers stress
the importance of Kropotkin‘s geographical training and his fieldwork in
Siberia in evaluating his work (Cole, 1954; Avrich, 19881, but in
estimating the scientific worth of Mutual Aid the overwhelming majority
of writers do comment on what they see as Kropotkin‘s successful
demolition of Huxley’s apparent vulgarisation of Darwinism.
Significantly, studies which take Kropotkin‘s rejection of Huxley’s
observed social darwinism as a starting point for their assessments have
blindly followed his misrepresentation of Huxley’s point (David Miller,
1976; 1983). More damningly, whilst Kropotkin eventually corrects his
error, admitting Huxley’s wider ethical concerns, (Kropotkin, 1968,
p.49) modem writers have exacerbated the original distortion and have
portrayed Huxley as an unrepentant defender of unfettered laissez-faire
liberalism (Martin Miller, 1976; Montague, 1976; Marshall, 1992). The
charge is unfounded. As Darwin’s ‘bulldog‘, Huxley used the concept of
evolution as a stick with which to beat the Church but he did not
recommend the ‘survival of the fittest’ as a model for human morality.
In his later essays he specifically advocated that a distinction be
drawn between human ethics and what he considered to be the ugly reality
of the natural world (Huxley, 1888; 1893).
This misrepresentation of Hwdey’s work by modem authors is surprising in
view of the stir that was caused by the publication in 1893 of Huxley’s
Romanes Lecture: amazed contemporaries understood his discussion of
natural and ethical evolution to mark a return to theological
principles. Yet the oversight may be explained in terms of the
opportunity that Kropotkin‘s refutation of Hwdey provides to present the
anarchist case in ‘scientific’ terms. Focusing attention on the
Hobbesian’ aspects of Kropotkin‘s argument (notwithstanding his later
developments of the theory) recent authors have presented Mutual Aid as
the most forceful statement of two anarchist ’truths’: that society is
possible in the absence of the State and that mankind is naturally
adapted to living in such a society without additional law (Woodcock,
1979, p.201). In spite of the crudeness of the Hobbesian defence, this
interpretation of Kropotkin‘s intentions has persuaded even the critics
(David Miller, 1983).
In so far as the theory of mutual aid is interpreted in this way, the
general impact of Kropotkin‘s rebuttal of Huxley has been to limit
debate about Mutual Aid. But in some cases, the injustice of the
judgement passed by modem authors on Huxley‘s work has given rise to a
more distorted reading of Kropotkin‘s theory. As Huxley is portrayed as
an advocate ofthe ‘survival of the fittest’ the theory of mutual aid is
alternatively represented a thesis of natural moral development This
interpretation is advanced in Peter Marshall’s recent analysis:
According to Kmpotkin, evolutionary theory... will demonstrate the
poesibility of anarchism rather than justit;, the capitalist system.
Anarchism as social philosophy is... in keeping with evolving human
nature. Kropotkin not only argues that this is an accurate and true
description of nature and the human species, but sees it aa pmviding the
ground for morality... Human beings are therefore naturally moral
(Marahall, 1989, p. 136)
In related arguments other writers have interpreted Mutual Aid as
examination of developing moral consciousness (Reichert, 1967; Read,
1968; Ward, 1982; Ad&, 1988). But Marshall’s argument may be pursued for
the weakness shared by all these positions is apparent in his own
discussion.
Marshall identifies the problem to be Kropotkin‘s: how, he asks, can the
theory of mutual aid explain the existence of the State and the failure
of human ethical evolution? If human beings are naturally moral, how
does Kropotkin explain what he condemns as the rampant individualism of
the capitalist world? The question ignores the possibility that in
Kropotkin‘s o w n work this difEculty does not arise.
For Kropotkin, there is no necessary evolution of morality. There is
only a potential It is precisely this point he wants to make in Mutual
Aid: ’true’ morality, he explains, will not simply emerge, it must be
willed back into existence. The apirit of mutual aid may have progressed
from the clan, to the tribe and to the village community. It may also
have received its most deliberate and perfect expression in the
organisation of the medieval cities. But the practice of mutual aid has
been always imperfect. Thus, in his discussion of primitive societies
Kropotkin points to the restrictions that are placed on the practice of
mutual aid outside the immediate clan or tribal group (Kropotkin, 1891,
pp.558–9). In his examination of medieval society Kropotkin similarly
argues that it was the weakness of the principle of mutual aid which led
to the decline of the city-states and to the rise of the modern
centralised State (Kropotkin, 1894, pp.404–17).
Rather than showing the natural moral progression of mankind the theory
of mutual aid explains the rise of individualism whilst denying it a
basis in science. Moreover, in this and in his later discussions of the
theory of mutual aid Kropotkin demonstrates that his primary target is
not Huxley, but Malthus. For it is Malthus’ work, not Huxley’s, that
establishes the existence of competition in nature and which denies the
theoretical possibility of ethical perfectibility and ultimately
anarchy.
In Darwin’s work, Malthus’ theory of population increase provides the
basis on which to explain chance variation by natural selection. In
social darwinian thinking (accepting the validity of the distinction
Kropotkin draws between the political and the scientific) Kropotkin
perceives that competition has been raised to the height of a moral
precept (Desmond and Moore, 1991, pp.262–69). Responding to both
arguments at once he denies Darwin’s hypothesis of natural selection in
order to refute the political value of competition. Kropotkin readily
admits that the competitive struggle exists; the charge constitutes one
of the major lines of his attack on capitalism But, he argues, it can be
overcome. The key to success lies in effective organisation: if species
co-operate and maximise their natural developmental potential they will
be able to surmount the hindrancea of the natural environment and ensure
their future survival.
In Mutual Aid, Kropotkin attempts to write Darwin’s premises out of the
evolutionary scheme by postulating the effectiveness of natural checks
to population growth as an alternative to the assumption of geometric
increase (Kropotkin, 1890a, pp.717–17). Yet the problem posed by Malthus
continues to wony him In 1910 he openly admits the inadequacy of his
original exposition and suggests an outright rejection of Malthus in
favour of a synthesis of Darwin with Lamarck (Kropotkin, 1910, pp.86–7).
pursuing this line of argument Kropotkin develops his theory to
distinguish between two concepts: biological and ethical mutual aid. The
first is an adaptation of Darwinian ideas and refers to an instinctual
desire to co-operate, common to all species. In the second Kropotkin
introduces the Lamarckian factor to suggest that the spirit of mutual
aid becomes habitual in certain environments (the autonomous federated
anarchist commune being the most conducive environment for the ethical
spirit). As it does so the biological impulse gives rise to particular
ethical sentiments. He describes these sentiments in terms of a
threefold progression &om mutual aid to justice and ultimately to
morality (Kropotkin, 1904; 1905; 1910). Between 1912 and 1919 Kropotkin
firrther elaborates his ideas, presenting the final statement of his
thesis in Ethics (Kropotkin, 1968, chs. 1–3).
It cannot be denied that Kropotkin intended to defend anarchism against
Hwley’s Hobbesian image of the natural world. The description of nature
as ‘red in tooth and claw’ and his explicit identification of anarchy
with the violence of this natural world seriously undermined the
anarchuk case. But Kropotkin‘s rejection of Huxley is only the starting
point for a much wider ranging discussion — a discussion which ended,
unfinished, at his death As they have concentrated so heavily on
Kropotkin’s challenge to social darwinism, modem writers have lost the
sense of this progression and have focused their attention on the
biologicalevolutionary aspects of Kropotkin‘s theory. To this extent,
Kropotkin’s defence of anarchism against Huxley has served to highlight
the scientific credibility of the anarchist position. In the context of
a discussion of evolution, Kropotkin’s defence has also been extended
and used as a basis on which to construct an anarchist theory of human
nature. Portrayed as Hobbesian and as social darwinian Huxley has
inadvertently served to narrow the parameters of the debate about the
theory of mutual aid in the same way that Kropotkin claims he
deliberately constricted Darwin’s conception of the struggle for
existence.
By acknowledgmg the breadth of Kropotkin’s argument it is possible to
tie up what are otherwise theoretical loose ends. Recognising that
Kropotkin‘s target was Malthus rather than Huxley also alters the
political gloss of Mutual Aid. Accordmg to this reading, Mutual Aid is
not a text designed to promote consciousness-raising but a demand for
the restructuring of society in accordance with the hitherto ‘natural’
development of history. In overcoming Malthus and synthesising Darwinian
and Lamarkian ideas Kropotkin clears the way for a renewed discussion of
the possibility of anarcho-communism. In the fist place the theory of
mutual aid promises, in the proper environment, the creation of amoral
spirit equal to the task of regulating social relations in the absence
of the State. Second, Kropowin’s conception of evolution indicates that
the way forward lies in following the organisational patterns worked out
in the past: in decentralisation and in the re-creation of community.
Third, in demolishing the competitive basis of Darwinian evolution,
Kropotlun surmounts the major objections to his anarchist plan: the
problem of scarcity. He thus secures a ‘scientific’ basis for the
realisation of communal self-sufficiency and, in tun, the principle of
dutribution according to need. Finally, by placing anarchist principles
of organisation on a natural foundation Kropotkin provides a rallying
cry for anarchist change by calling for the demolition of institutions
unfavourable to the expression of the ‘natural’ co-operative spirit.
Avrich, P. (1988) Anarchist portraits. New Jersey Princeton University
Press.
Baldwin, R N . (1970) Kropotkin’s Revolutionary Pamphlets. New York
Dover.
Cole, GD.H (1951) A History of Socialist Thought: Marxism and Anarchism
1850–1890. London:
Desmond, A and Meore, J. (1991) Darwin. London: Michael Joseph.
Huxley, T.H. (1888) ‘The struggle for existence’, The Nineteenth
Century, 23 February.
Kelly, A. (1982) Mikhail Bukunin: A Study in the Psychology and Politics
of Utopianism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kropotkin, P, (1890a) ‘Mutual aid among animals’, The Nineteenth
Century, 28, September.
Kropotkin, P. (1890b) ‘Mutual aid among animals’, The Ninefeenth
Century, 28, November.
Kropotkin, P. (1891) ‘Mutual aid among savages’, The Nineteenth Century,
29, April.
Kmpotldn, P. (1894) ‘Mutual aid in the mediaeval city’, The Nineteenth
Century, 36, April.
Kropotkin, P. (1904) ‘The ethical need of the present day’, The
Nineteenth Century, 56, August.
Kropotkin, P. (1905) ‘The morality of nature’, The Nineteenth Century,
57, March.
Kropotkin, P. (1910) ‘Evolution and mutual aid’, The Nineteenth Century,
36, April.
Kropotkin, P. (1968) Ethics: Origin and Development. L.S. Friedland &
J.R. Prioshnikoff (trans.).
Marshall, P. (1989) ‘Human nature and anarchism’ in Goodway, D. (ed.)
For Anarchism: History, Theory and Practice,
Marshall, P. (1992) Demanding the Impossible. London: Harper Collins.
Miller, D. (1979) Social Justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Miller, D. (1984) Anarchism. London: JM Dent & Sons.
Miller, M A (1976) Kropotkin. Chicago & London: Univelsity of Chicago
Press.
Mondolfo, R. (1930) ‘Kropotkin, Prince Petr Alexeyevich’ in Seligman,
E.R.A (ed.) Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. London: Macmillan.
Montague, A. (1976) The Nature of Human Aggression. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Read, H (1968) ‘Pragmatic Anarchism’, Encounter, 30, January.
Reichert, W.O. (1967) ‘Towards a New Understanding Of Anarchism’,
Western Political Quarterly, 20, December.
Walter, N. (1971) ‘The scientific revolutionary’, New Society, 17
February.
Ward, C. (1982) Anarchy in Action. London: Freedom Press.
Woodcock, G. (1979) Anarchism. (Harmondsworth: Penguin).
Woodcock, G. and Avakmovic, I. (1950) The Anarchist Prince. London: T.V.
Boardman & Co.
[1] All the articles were published in The Nineteenth Century. The first
set appeared between 1890 and 1896; the seoondbetween 1904 and 1905; and
the final set between 1910 and 1919.
[2] With significant differences on the details and validity of
Kropotldn’s theory of mutual aid, this view has been advanced by writers
including George Woodcock, Paul Avrich, William Reichert, Herbert Read,
and David Miller. See references for details of publications.