Why a post-war essay prescribed moral regeneration as the remedy for chauvinistic nationalism, envisioning each homeland’s distinct mission within a brotherhood of peoples
By Roberto Assagioli
1922
Doc. #23492 | Assagioli Archives, Florence
Original title: L’Internationale dello Spirito
Translated and Edited With Notes by Jan Kuniholm
Editorial Note
The abstract and contextual subtitle in this online edition have been added by the editor, Kenneth Sørensen, to support readability, navigation, and archival consistency. The original wording has not been altered. The translation, footnotes, and scholarly editorial commentary are by Jan Kuniholm, who has contributed contextual annotations throughout.
Abstract
In this 1922 essay, Assagioli examines the conflict between nationalism and internationalism in the aftermath of the First World War. He rejects both chauvinistic patriotism and abstract cosmopolitanism, proposing instead a spiritual synthesis rooted in the moral mission of nations. Drawing on Mazzini’s vision of national duty within a larger human purpose, he argues that nations are living spiritual realities whose worth lies in their contribution to collective progress. He traces internationalist thought from Stoic philosophy through political federalism to ethical and socialist movements, showing the limitations of each. The remedy he prescribes is moral regeneration: a transformation of consciousness that replaces separative selfishness with active solidarity, preparing the ground for a federation of free peoples united in the Internationale of the Spirit.
In these tumultuous and chaotic times, among the numerous currents of thought, feeling, and action that agitate the vast sea of humanity, we find discord and conflict that initially leave us perplexed and confused.
One of the fields in which these contradictions and conflicts are most evident is that concerning the principles and sentiments of nationality and internationality. In fact, we are witnessing a growing and vigorous affirmation of both these principles. Both the aspirations to create a moral and practical understanding between different nations and the glorification and worship of individual homelands have recently, in the post-war period, intensified greatly, dividing minds and causing bitter conflict in various countries.
What is the meaning and value of these opposing currents? Which of them is aimed at the true good of humanity?
It is easy to devote oneself to one of these causes, considering it the only good one, and to lash out passionately against the other; it is less easy to take an individual position that is not determined by traditional ideas, collective suggestions, and thoughtless impulses, but is instead the result of wise discrimination, enlightened sentiment, and conscious and autonomous will. Proof of this difficulty lies in the fact that we find people of high intellectual and moral value, sincerely religious souls, and convinced spiritualists [1] in both camps.
Thus, in the nationalist camp, we find men who have given and continue to give generously the best of themselves to their country, who are ready to sacrifice even their lives for its good. Furthermore, in several countries, there is a reawakening of national consciousness, connected with a religious and spiritual reawakening. This is most evident in India, where the Prophet [2] has sparked a new kind of revolution in the form of passive resistance and “civil disobedience,” inspired both by religious ideals and aspirations for political liberation.
Elsewhere, where new spiritual currents are lacking or weak, we find that many nationalists are fervently attached to traditional religion; for example, in France, many nationalists are also fervent Catholics.
On the other hand, in the internationalist camp, the souls who have braved unpopularity and hatred in order to proclaim their ideal of human brotherhood are certainly no less noble and generous, nor is the spiritual flame and religious conscience any less alive. Suffice it to mention, among the most representative figures, Rabindranath Tagore [3] in India, Romain Rolland [4] in France, and Friedrich Foerster [5] in Germany. And, among the appearances in the religious field, I will mention that of the English Quakers, who continue to carry out admirable work of brotherhood in the countries most affected by war and revolution; and that of Christians of all denominations united in the Fellowship of Reconciliation. [6] Finally, Pius XI, in an encyclical and in various speeches, used very strong language against the excesses of various forms of nationalism. [7]
The confusion is heightened by the fact that, like spiritualists, materialists are also numerous in both camps. Among the nationalists, many, with their dreams of power and political dominance, of commercial and industrial expansion, with their exaltation of brute force, demonstrate that they have, in practice if not in theory, a purely materialistic conception of life. In the opposing materialistic camp, the largest group is made up of socialists, who adhere to the theories of historical materialism and attach the utmost importance to economic factors. This singular division of hearts and minds shows how difficult the problem is and how justified are the perplexities and inner struggles of the most thoughtful spirits, of the most upright and generous consciences, who find themselves torn between the two different ideals.
On the other hand, it is a question that no man — and, we might add, no woman — can ignore. Even those who do not wish to take an active or direct part in political and social action cannot completely detach themselves from the very serious problems of the moment; they cannot fail to be affected in some way — in their feelings and interests — by the crisis that is troubling our civilization and threatening its very existence.
But how can we find our bearings? On what basis should we base our attitude? What principles should we adopt as norms and guidelines? A helpful first step can come from a broad and synthetic historical overview of the origins and development of the issue.
It can be said that in ancient times the problem that torments the modern conscience did not exist. Different people generally lived separated by rigid barriers of race, language, and religion. Each tended to consider all the others barbarians. Even then, there were those who dreamed of the unification of humanity, but these were aspirations and attempts of an imperialistic and centralizing nature, such as those of Alexander the Great and some Roman emperors. Some thinkers, such as the Stoics, dreamed of an ideal cosmopolitanism, and simply affirmed the moral unity of men without taking into account their belonging to different peoples.
After the chaos that followed the collapse of Rome, in the Middle Ages, there were two principles that tended to unify the various political groups into which Europe was fragmented: one was the ideal of the Holy Roman Empire, which inspired lofty and universal spirits like Dante. The other was the Church. Even though its limited and separate temporal power created only one more division among men and a cause of war, the Church’s spiritual authority and the unity of language, rites, and beliefs united the European peoples in a Res-Pubblica Christiana [8] in which the ideal bond (in certain cases) also created an actual unity of political and military action, as happened in the Crusades.
However, neither of these principles went beyond the limits of Western civilization, and even within this sphere they failed completely. The Holy Roman Empire did not succeed in unifying Europe, and the unity of the Res-Publica Christiana was violently broken by the Reformation.
Coming to modern times, we encounter a new phenomenon of great importance, which has created a completely different situation. This is the development of national consciousness. Previously, there had been states and mini-states, and there had been a very intense sense of civic duty, but the great nations had not yet been formed, either morally or materially.
The rise of nations as effective entities and political realities changed the character of peoples’ aspirations towards the unification of peoples. The utopia of a world state (that is, cosmopolitanism) was replaced by the ideal of a free and peaceful understanding between peoples; that is, internationalism. This initially had a predominantly political and legal character. In the political field, various projects were gradually proposed to establish relations and ties between the various states of Europe, obliging them to live in peace with each other. The first of these projects worthy of mention was that of the French statesman Duke of Sully, prime minister for King Henry IV of France at the beginning of the 17th century. [9] He was the first to abandon the idea of creating a single state and propose a federal system.
A subsequent project was that of another French diplomat, the Abbot of Saint-Pierre, [10] who in the early 18th century, in his book entitled Projet de traité pour rendre la paix perpétuelle , [11] proposed the formation of a permanent congress of ambassadors from all the states of Europe, which was to resolve by arbitration all issues that might arise.
In the last years of the 18th century, Immanuel Kant [12] took up the concept of a confederation of peoples and states in his well-known work Zum ewigen Frieden (Toward Eternal Peace) and in other writings, as well as the ideal — which he did not consider achievable — of the abolition of war.
Even more interesting — and perhaps less well known — are the pacifist ideas of Napoleon I. In his book on his conversations with the Emperor in exile on St. Helena, [13] Las Cases says that Napoleon’s aim was to eliminate the unjust political situation that prevailed in 18th-century Europe and replace it with a rational division of states based on nationality. Once this had been achieved, he would have united all the nation states into a large federation led by France, with a central assembly to deal with general affairs and maintain peace.
This grand project was ruined by his defeat, but he predicted that it would be realized in the future. “The impetus has been given,” Napoleon said, “and I believe that, after my fall and the failure of my system, no balance will be possible in Europe outside the consolidation and confederation of the great peoples. The first sovereign who adopts the cause of nationality in good faith will find himself at the head of Europe and will be able to accomplish whatever he wishes.”
These ideas and retrospective reflections of Napoleon on St. Helena, Muir [14] rightly observes, should not be taken as statements of historical fact; they were intended to create a Napoleonic legend and justify the great conqueror in the eyes of posterity. . . But it is nevertheless significant that the most powerful political mind of modern times could feel that the best way to secure a favorable judgment from posterity was to identify his name with the twin causes of nationalism and internationalism; and who — the first among modern statesmen — saw that these two ideas are not at all incompatible with each other, but that effective internationalism is made possible only by the triumph of the national principle.
While the political doctrine of internationalism was thus emerging, the legal doctrine was developing alongside it. As early as 1625, the Dutch humanist and jurist Grotius [15] published his work De Jure Belli ac Pacis , [16] which set a precedent and gave rise to numerous other works on international law, among which we may mention the Codex juris gentium diplomaticus [17] by the great philosopher Leibniz, [18] and those by Pufendorf, [19] Walter, [20] etc.
In the 19th century, internationalism became broader and more complex and took on special characteristics, often very different and discordant. We can distinguish three main currents within it: the first represented by the practical attempts made by sovereigns and governments to ensure peace; the second, which could be called a mysticism and a spiritual ethic; and the third created among workers by socialism.
The first attempt by a head of state to ensure European peace was that of Tsar Alexander I of Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. By one of those ironies that are not uncommon in history and in life, this attempt, which was supposed to be the expression of the highest senses of justice, Christian charity, and peace, took the form of the infamous Holy Alliance, which became an instrument of tyranny and an obstacle to progress. [21]
Then, by a curious coincidence, at the end of the same century, it was another Tsar, Nicholas II, who made a new attempt at international pacification by convening the Hague Conference, which was followed by the establishment of the Hague Tribunal as a permanent court of arbitration between states [22] . This attempt, unlike the previous one, did not produce the opposite of the desired effect, but remained practically ineffective because the means by which it was attempted to be put into practice were inadequate; they were superficial and purely formal, and did not address the root causes of rivalry and conflict between peoples.
Ethical-spiritual internationalism found its most fervent advocate and proponent — one can say without exaggeration its prophet — in Giuseppe Mazzini [23] . The more years go by, the more his figure looms large, the more the breadth, depth, and harmony of his ideas are revealed. On the subject that concerns us, he arrived at a conception so original, inclusive, and harmonious that — while it would later be integrated and extended in its concrete applications and consequences — it was never surpassed, and in my opinion never even equaled in its admirable balancing of the two opposing principles of nationality and internationality.
He himself clearly summarized this concept in the [first pages of the] fourth chapter of The Duties of Man , dedicated to Duties towards Humanity : [24]
Your first duties, first, not as to time, but as to importance — because unless you understand these, you can only imperfectly fulfill the rest — your first duties are towards Humanity.
You have duties as Citizens, as sons, as husbands, and as fathers; duties sacred and inviolable, and of which I shall briefly speak to you in detail, but that which constitutes the sacredness and inviolability of these Duties, is the mission, the Duty springing from your Human nature.
You are fathers in order that you may educate Men in the worship and fulfillment of the Law of God.
You are Citizens, you have a Country, in order that in a given and limited sphere of action, the concourse and assistance of a certain number of men already related to you by language, tendencies, and customs, may enable you to labor more effectively for the good of all men, present, and to come; a task in which your solitary effort would be lost, falling powerless and unheeded amid the immense multitude of your fellow beings.
Those who pretend to teach you morality while limiting your duties to those you owe to your family and to your Country, do but teach you a more or less enlarged egotism, tending to the injury of others and yourself. The family and the Country are like two circles drawn within a larger circle which contains them both: they are two steps of the ladder you have to climb; without them your ascent is impossible, but upon them it is forbidden to rest. [25]
This ideal was cherished by Mazzini from his youth, and as soon as he could, he sought and, rather than finding it, created the opportunity to try to implement it. In 1834, while he was a refugee in Switzerland, he persuaded other refugees from various countries to form the Association of Young Europe , which was to bring together the various national associations and have them sign a declaration of brotherhood, some points of which I will recall here:
We, the undersigned, men of Progress and Liberty, believing in the Equality and Brotherhood of men, in the Equality and Brotherhood of peoples, believing:
– That humanity is called to proceed towards continuous progress and, under the rule of universal moral law, towards the free and harmonious development of its faculties and the fulfillment of its mission in the Universe;
– That it can only do so with the active cooperation of all its members, freely associated.
Convinced: That every man and every people has a particular mission, which, while constituting the individuality of that man and that people, necessarily contributes to the fulfillment of the general mission of Humanity; strong in our rights as men, strong in our conscience, and in God’s mandate to Humanity entrusted to those who wish to devote their arms, their intellect, and their lives to the holy cause of the progress of Peoples, having first formed themselves into free Associations, the primitive nuclei of Young Italy, Young Poland, and Young Germany. Gathered together for the common good on the fifteenth day of April in the year 1824, with our hands on our hearts and standing as guarantors of the future, we have signed the following:
Young Italy, Young Poland, and Young Germany, republican associations tending towards an identical goal that embraces humanity under the empire of the same faith in Liberty, Equality, and Progress, now and forever unite in brotherhood for all that concerns the general goal. [26]
When one considers that this vibrant statement was made by 17 men who were exiles, poor and persecuted, one must bow one’s head in amazement and be moved by such faith and audacity. Let it not be said that it was only a “nice gesture” that had no practical effect. The association as such did not survive, but the ideas and feelings it aroused spread and acted as an invisible and powerful ferment that stimulated aspirations for national freedom in various countries. The governments of the time, who were good judges in this matter, were deeply concerned and intensified their persecution of Mazzini and his followers. We also have significant testimony to the effectiveness of Mazzini’s ideas from a man who was certainly not inclined to take ideals too seriously: Prince Metternich: [27]
“I had to fight against the greatest of soldiers,” he says. “I managed to bring together emperors and kings, a Tsar, a Sultan, a Pope, but no one ever caused me more trouble in the world than a thin, pale Italian brigand, ardent as an apostle, cunning as a thief, self-assured as a comedian, tireless as a lover, whose name was Giuseppe Mazzini.” [28]
After Mazzini, ethical-spiritual internationalism took on different characteristics, often less elevated and more exclusive. This can be said, in general, of the purely pacifist movement. It gathered many good and generous souls, many sincere and well-intentioned spirits, but its effectiveness was limited due to various mistrusts and limitations that existed within it.
Many internationalists, lacking a clear sense of reality, did not see the root causes of antagonism between peoples and deluded themselves into believing that legal treaties and academic conferences were enough to reconcile and unite them. Others focused their activities on negative work against war and, confusing the means with the end, believed that the abolition of armies would be enough to prevent wars. A different and superior current characterizes movements and individuals of a distinctly spiritualist character, who find in the Unity of the Spirit the primary reason and motive for internationalism conceived as real brotherhood, and lived by individuals and peoples.
One of these is the Theosophical Movement. [29] Its primary goal — and the only one to which it requires explicit adherence — is to form a nucleus of universal brotherhood of humanity without distinction of race, creed, color, or sex. This and other movements such as the Vedanta movement, [30] of which Swami Vivekananda [31] was an apostle, drew public attention to the treasures of wisdom and spirituality contained in the philosophies and religions of the East and revealed to many Westerners a whole human world that had been ignored or considered inferior or almost barbaric. Together with the studies of a host of Orientalists, these movements effectively contributed to internationalism’s big leap forward: overcoming the boundaries of Europe and America, within which it had been restricted until then. Thus it became truly global.
A completely different character, indeed in some respects opposite, was that of the socialist internationalism promoted by Karl Marx with the creation of the First Workers’ International. The doctrinal concept underlying it was historical materialism; its main goal was a series of economic demands; its practical methods were class struggle and rigid anti-nationalism.
In the 20th century — especially during and after the Great War, [32] which tragically brought the problem to the fore — internationalism underwent extensive and complex developments that would require a lengthy examination. Moreover, the most important events in this regard are still fresh in everyone’s memory. First, there was Woodrow Wilson’s great attempt to develop a just peace to reorganize the world order on the basis of the principle of internationality, to create an international body that would maintain this order, regulate international relations, and eliminate the causes of conflict. [33]
Then there was the tragic failure of that noble intention, the immediate reasons for which appear to be Wilson’s weakness and inexperience, and the ill will, deception, and bad faith of the leading statesmen who worked with him on the Versailles peace treaty; but whose real causes are to be found in the moral and spiritual immaturity of peoples, in not feeling and wanting their brotherhood, and to implement the great principle of internationality.
Finally, after the great disappointment, there is currently a confusion and disintegration of minds and groups: the uncompromising contrast between the cynical skepticism of some and the uncompromising utopias of others; between the heartfelt pessimism of those who foresee the collapse of our civilization and the fervent hopes of those who infer the possibility of regeneration from the undoubted signs of renewal that are manifesting themselves in various places, and are working to bring it about.
But as we mentioned at the beginning, even among spiritualists and fervent reconstructionists there are deep disagreements about how to conceive of the future world order, about the choice of methods to implement it, and above all about how to judge the validity and scope of the international ideal. Let us try to examine the question with the help of historical experience and the vision of the greatest minds who have labored to solve the problem.
In order to examine the validity and importance of the postulates of internationalism, we must first study the question of nationality directly.
What is a nation? What elements constitute it? What is its validity and its moral and spiritual justification? Various attempts have been made to give a concrete basis to the concept of ‘nation’, but none of them has withstood criticism.
The geographical basis, while it may help the formation and persistence of a nation, is by no means essential and necessary, as demonstrated by the fact that peoples scattered in separate and distant groups still maintain their national spirit. The basis of race, whose importance has been passionately defended by numerous theorists, especially Germans, to the point of truly grotesque exaggerations, is undermined by the fact that in reality there are no longer any pure races, and that race and nation do not coincide, since people of the same race are divided into nations that are often hostile to each other.
Even unity of government is not in itself sufficient to constitute a nation, and only if it is the expression of the will of the nation — that is, if it is the effect and not the cause of it — can it be a positive factor in national life. Some of the many materialists who, until recently, took pleasure in explaining all the facts of human life through the stomach, [34] wanted to find in the commonality of interests one of the main, if not the most important, bonds that unite men in nations. But this opinion is contradicted by the facts. There are indeed nation states constituted by common interests created by customs barriers and internal economic and financial regimes, but even this is more an effect than a cause of national unity. On the other hand, there are often — and in this the socialists may be partly right — more or less conflicting interests between different social classes and between different groups belonging to the same nation, for example between agricultural and industrial groups.
The unity of language is a much more important factor than all those mentioned so far. It constitutes both an ideal and practical bond, a vehicle that greatly facilitates the communion of ideas and feelings, the unity of tradition and culture. However, even this is not a necessary and decisive factor, as demonstrated by the example of trilingual Switzerland on the one hand, and England and America on the other, which are linguistically united but nationally separate.
What, then, constitutes a nation? Something intangible, yet intensely real. It is the result of feelings and will; multiple feelings aroused by common traditions and aspirations, by the memory of common sufferings, common struggles and victories, by the prestige of great personalities who embodied and summarized the characteristics and ideals of the national consciousness in themselves, thus revealing it to itself, and sometimes almost shaping it.
Some scholars of the subject, such as Ramsay Muir [35] , stop here, but we can go further and say that the communion of feelings and will is the expression of a true national soul, of a spiritual reality that exists above the individual members of the nation. This concept has been proposed and supported, among others, by the Polish philosopher Wincenty Lutoslawski [36] in an interesting paper presented at the Fourth International Congress of Philosophy, [37] entitled “Les Nations comme réalités métaphysiques” [“Nations as Metaphysical Realities”]
Even if one does not wish to accept the reality of the national soul in a metaphysical sense, I believe that one cannot fail to admit it in a pragmatic sense. In reality, it is ” as if ” each nation had its own individual psyche, which has all the characteristics of a single human psyche. It has its memories and hopes, its aspirations and impulses, its exaltations and depressions, its perplexities and internal struggles.
A serious mistake made by absolute internationalists has been, in my opinion, to misrecognize this psychological reality; to consider national consciousness as the result of antiquated or artificial prejudices produced by practical interests, and therefore to completely devalue it, to the point of denying it. A second mistake made by internationalists has been to fail to understand and appreciate the true value of individuals’ feelings towards their homeland. For many, love of country becomes a deeply felt and practically lived religion. It becomes an ideal so powerful that it overcomes the selfishness rooted in human nature, overcomes the instinct for self-preservation and attachment to material possessions.
An ideal that leads one to sacrifice everything, even one’s own life, cannot but be considered a religious ideal. There are certainly higher and more spiritual ideals that are broader and more universal; but not all souls are capable of feeling and accepting them, and to want to take that ideal away from them would be like destroying the simple and pure faith of so many souls devoted to their positive religion, which alone corresponds to their nature and can satisfy their needs. Anyone who succeeded in doing so would only accomplish a negative work; they would extinguish a light, break a spring; but often those who attempt it only achieve the effect of provoking a hostile reaction, which is natural and in some respects justified.
This recognition of the legitimacy and value of the patriotic ideal must not, however, make us blind and exclusive worshipers and idolaters of it. It is, as we have said, a form of religion, and like all religions it can have, and unfortunately very often does have, its fanaticism, its intolerance, and its degenerations; it lends itself to being ignobly exploited for the selfish ends of individuals and castes.
Those who have recognized the reality, justification, and value of the national ideal have the right and duty to point out and combat its exaggerations and perversions, to warn against the exploitation to which it is subject. These can be reduced to four basic types: hyper-nationalism or chauvinism; imperialism; militarism; commercialism and industrialism. All these excesses and deviations of the national spirit correspond perfectly to certain instincts and passions of the individual soul, and examining their correspondences helps to reveal the origin and true nature of the excesses, and to indicate the best means of correcting and eliminating them.
Hyper-nationalism can be considered a phenomenon of excessive collective pride, of a presumption and self-aggrandizement that causes a loss of sense of reality and proportion, leading to an unjust contempt for other groups of human beings, and in extreme cases to the abolition of all restraint and self-criticism, to a veritable delusion of grandeur.
Imperialism corresponds to the thirst for domination, the “will to power,” which is so strong in the human soul. A nation in which this dominates dreams of and attempts an indefinite expansion of its territory and offensive powers, without any regard for the rights, interests, and needs of other peoples.
Militarism, while a necessary tool of nationalism and imperialism, also has its direct origin in the combative instinct inherent in young and exuberant beings, which, even without the involvement of other stimuli or interests, leads to the exercise of force and drives them to fight.
Commercialism and industrialism are the collective expression of the thirst for material possessions and the greed for gain and wealth that dominates so many people, especially now. They can also be considered, in a certain respect, as manifestations of the activism: the fever and mania for doing, doing, doing that has pervaded contemporary humanity.
But we can take our investigation even further and recognize that these passions and tendencies have their roots in the soil of separative selfishness (individual and group) and practical materialism. If this is the diagnosis of the evil, what are the remedies?
The medical arts teach us that we must first and foremost eliminate the various causes of disease, using all effective means to do so; and only secondarily, when immediate relief is necessary, should we combat the most distressing disorders with symptomatic and palliative remedies. Applying these principles to the evils that afflict our society, it appears that the fundamental task is to combat materialism and selfishness in all their manifestations, both individual and collective.
The fight against materialism in the scientific, philosophical, and religious fields is being vigorously pursued by modern spiritualism [38] in all its expressions and by the best representatives of the Church and religions throughout the world. It is a struggle that began several decades ago and is taking an increasingly favorable turn. The beginnings were very bitter; it was resisted and the first progress was slow, but now spiritualism is gaining more and more ground: it can be said that the field of high culture is largely in its power, except for a few strongholds still occupied by the tenacious defenders of the previously dominant positivist conceptions. What is still lacking is: first, the persuasion of the masses, who tend to lag behind but eventually follow the guidelines that come to them from above; second — and most importantly — the general application of spiritual principles and their embodiment in lived experience.
The struggle against selfishness is closely connected with that against materialism; indeed, in part, it is implicit in it. However, there are also effective means of combating it directly and specifically. For our present purposes, it is sufficient to remember that anything that brings the individual out of his or her separate little self, that broadens his or her circle of interests, transporting them from his or her empirical personality to a community and an ideal principle, attenuates and destroys selfishness. And, as we have seen for individuals, patriotism has precisely this beneficial function: the dedication and sacrifice of the citizen for his country is a victory over personal selfishness.
Now it is a question of making a new and great advance, a further and decisive step, it is a question of combating the materialism and selfishness of ‘national entities,’ of spiritualizing and purifying them, preventing the moral tragedy whereby their lower instincts and passions (of which certain individuals and national groups are willing representatives) exploit the elevated and noble sentiments and the spirit of dedication and sacrifice of sincerely patriotic individuals for their own base ends.
Here too, the visionary spirit of Giuseppe Mazzini is our light and guide, clearly showing us the way forward:
The homeland is not an end in itself. The raison d’être and justification of a nation lies in its beneficial function for humanity. Nationality is sacred to me because I see in it the instrument of work for the good of all, for the progress of all. Homelands are the workshops of humanity, and every nation is a living mission. A society of men united by a principle of selfishness for a solely material purpose is not a nation. [39]
“A true nation,” writes Bolton King,[40] faithfully summarizing the thinking of our Great Man, “must have its moral intention, its clear and understood mission to accomplish for itself and for humanity; its conscious part in realizing the divine idea on earth.”[41]
This spiritual conception of the homeland, and the moral function assigned to it, constitutes a sure safeguard, indeed the only truly effective one against the excesses and exploitation of patriotism. When patriots and rulers care more about the spiritual greatness and ideal value of their nation than its material power, when they no longer have that aberration of moral sense that makes them consider deceptions, betrayals and acts of violence — that are considered crimes for private individuals — to be lawful or even obligatory when carried out in the service of the homeland, then truly national entities will no longer constitute a danger to the collective elevation of humanity, nor an obstacle to universal brotherhood. On the contrary, they will be the means by which this brotherhood will be expressed concretely in reality, and the organs of the great collective human body will be the necessary notes of a living harmony.
But to achieve this admirable harmony, every citizen must have the courage to say, when necessary, what Giuseppe Mazzini dared to say, strengthened by his unblemished and fearless patriotism:
I care little that Italy, in a territory of so many square miles, eats its wheat and cabbage at the best market price; I care little about Rome, if no great European initiative is to come from it. What matters to me is that Italy be great and good, moral and virtuous, and that it have a mission to fulfill in the world.[42]
At this point, some will probably think: “These are beautiful dreams, noble utopias, but unachievable, impractical, and indeed dangerous, because they make us lose our sense of reality and risk making us prey to more astute and unscrupulous enemies.”
Well, I believe that it can be demonstrated without too much difficulty that in this case, as in other similar ones, the dreamers and idealists are actually the practical ones, while those who boast of being positive and realistic miscalculate and achieve results contrary to those desired.
Let us examine the beautiful effects of pride, violence, fraud, calculation, self-interest, selfishness, militarism, diplomacy, and commercialism in modern international life. Whenever a nation has become so strong, rich, and intrusive as to pose a threat to others, the others have banded together and sooner or later succeeded in weakening it, inflicting upon it the just punishment for its excesses. Napoleon I’s France and Wilhelm II’s Germany received this lesson in international morality in very different ways.
Hasn’t the feverish arms race — which was ridiculously and hypocritically called “armed peace” (can you imagine an angel holding a machine gun instead of an olive branch?) — taken away enormous wealth and energy from education, social welfare, land reclamation, and all kinds of cultural and humanitarian works?
And did the inextricable web of diplomatic intrigues, pitfalls, and counter-pitfalls woven by the architects of the so-called “European Concert” [43] of the great powers until 1914 bring any real benefit to any of the parties involved — or, in addition to being futile, was it not positively harmful, preventing any honest understanding or stable cooperation?
And did not the economic struggles of the pre-war period, and the more fierce and foolish ones of the post-war period, have ruinous effects for everyone? Currency speculation, which has resulted in hunger and unemployment for millions of human beings, is as harmful to countries with strong currencies, where industries are ruined, as it is to countries with weak currencies, where national and individual wealth is impaired. Would this not be grotesque, if it were not tragic? These are the “brilliant” and happy results of “realistic” and “practical” methods!
It is therefore no wonder that more open-minded economists such as Keynes [44] and our own Luzzatti [45] are beginning to see clearly and are issuing explicit and serious warnings, and that one of America’s leading financiers, Frank Vanderlip, [46] is inclined to give moral and spiritual regeneration top priority among the remedies for what he calls “the great disease of Europe,” and to make the following significant statements:
“Personally, I have not had much experience in testing the practical value of spiritual tendencies, but I have seen enough of the terrible results of the universal wave of materialism to believe that there is something more important than commercial statistics to take into account when attempting to predict the future of a nation or a continent.” [47]
Another American writer, sociologist George Herron, [48] stated more precisely and forcefully the need and urgency to change current divisive and combative concepts and methods with a unified vision and a work of universal harmony and collaboration.
“War,” he writes, “has imposed the fact of human unity in an irrefutable way. We cannot ignore or deny it any more than we can ignore or deny the air we breathe and the earth we walk on. And this discovery of the social and economic unity of humanity constitutes the most important, radical, and revolutionary historical event. . . The connection between each of us and others is something we can no longer overlook or postpone, either in theory or in practice. From now on, humanity must act together as a single economic body, a single spiritual entity, a single planetary family, otherwise it will disappear from the face of the earth.” [49]
It is clear, therefore, that the most important and practical tasks facing every person of goodwill are:
- First, to convince people and governments that this radical change in international relations is necessary and urgent, not only on the basis of an ideal principle, but for their own interest, indeed for their own salvation.
- Second, to cooperate in bringing about that change by working in whatever field is open to us, and with whatever means are at our disposal.
Fortunately, there is already a growing group of conscious minds and generous souls working in every country towards this supreme goal. It is not organized externally: its members belong to very different fields, sometimes even seemingly opposed, but in reality this group constitutes a living reality, the true international: the Internationale of the Spirit.
This group needs to be strengthened with new workers, to become powerful and listened to, to persuade with the irrefutable evidence of new principles, to draw people in with the appeal of its highest ideal. There is room for everyone in it, because in all the works of individual, national, and social life, we can and must work for its victory.
In the field of education, there is a whole revolution to be carried out: a series of new and renewed tasks. There is, for example, the channeling and sublimation of combative energies, which must be appropriately initiated from an early age and then followed and directed until the young person is able to carry them forward in a conscious and autonomous manner.
There is the whole history of humanity to be rewritten and taught, no longer as a monotonous series of events and dates, giving the impression that humanity’s predominant occupation has been and must be war, conquest, and external glory; but rather as a moral and spiritual lesson on the causes of the greatness and decline of peoples, in light of the concepts we have outlined.
There is a whole theoretical and practical education in the spirit of solidarity, an objective teaching of the moral value and practical advantages of association and cooperation between individuals and groups.
In the social field, there is a similar task to be carried out by teaching, by all means, especially by the irresistible force of the example, benefits and necessity of human solidarity.
It is necessary to promote, with a sense of justice and enlightened generosity on the part of the wealthy classes, a new form of class collaboration that replaces class struggle, removing its raison d’être .
In national life, we must not oppose the development of a healthy patriotism that unites all citizens in a feeling of devotion and a desire to serve our common Mother; on the contrary, it must be encouraged. Only those who have demonstrated sincere attachment to their country can carry out with any chance of success the delicate and often thankless but absolutely necessary task of combating nationalistic excesses and misrepresentations of their own country, and of reducing the deception and exploitation of love of country. Only those who have this sincere attachment can carry out the work of purifying and saving the “soul” of their own people; and for all the reasons which, as we have seen, justify and require the existence of ‘national entities.’
In the international arena, then, we must encourage in every way possible a world order based on the principle of nationality. We must encourage the creation of an ever closer and more lively understanding and collaboration between those who pursue the same ideal in every country and the development of the utmost understanding, harmony, sympathy, and collaboration between peoples, in order to eliminate the causes of dissent and conflict, many of which are artificial. We must openly denounce those who stir up trouble out of passion or interest.
By all these means, we can prepare for the advent of a true permanent association of free nations in a world organization. But our fervor must not cloud our vision of reality, so as to create in ourselves and others excessive illusions that would be followed by further crises, further struggles, and further bloody clashes between peoples, races, and continents. Perhaps this progress will never be achieved if humanity fails in the task assigned to it by God and imposed on it by its spiritual conscience. But no one can deny that it is possible, that humanity has in its hands the choice and responsibility for its own destiny. Those who have worked faithfully throughout their lives for that ideal of brotherhood will be able to rightly say that they have lived and implemented it on their part, that they have given their brothers and sisters everything they could give them, and, abandoning their mortal remains, they will be able to ascend with a pure and serene conscience to the spheres of the Spirit where humanity, harmony, and love already reign supreme. [50]
[1] Assagioli’s use of the word “spiritualist” is intended to identify those for whom spirituality and the spiritual dimension are realities of human existence. -Oath.
[2] ie, Gandhi, who was arrested and imprisoned by the British in 1922. —Ed.
[3] Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) was a Bengali polymath, whose work as a poet, writer, playwright, composer, philosopher and social reformer led the Bengali Renaissance. In 1913 he was the first non-European to win the Nobel Prize in Literature. He opposed imperialism and supported Indian nationalists, yet traveled to over 60 countries and promoted international awareness and cooperation. -Oath.
[4] Romain Rolland (1866-1944) was a French dramatist, novelist, essayist, art historian and mystic who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1915. He was an admirer of Gandhi and Tagore, and a lifelong pacifist, moving to Switzerland to protest the First World War. He had a 19 year-long, mutually appreciative correspondence with Freud, and was described by Stefan Zweig as “the moral conscience of Europe.” -Oath.
[5] Friedrich Wilhelm Foerster (1869-1966) was a German educationalist, pacifist and philosopher, known for his public opposition to Nazism. He strongly opposed the militarist attitudes of German rulers and was opposed to the foreign policy in the era of the First World War. He criticized the political legacy of Bismarck and concluded that because Germany had blocked the success of the Hague Conventions of 1907 it had paved the way for war. After the close of World War II he warned of the possible “Prussianization” of the entire world. -Oath.
[6] The Fellowship of Reconciliation (FoR) was the name used by several religious nonviolent organizations. The first group to use this name was formed in August 1914 between an English Quaker and a German Lutheran at a Christian pacifist conference. They organized a conference in Cambridge in 1915 at which over 100 Christian denominations agreed to found the FoR. The FoR had a prominent role as a network for Christian pacifists. FoR organizations still exist in several countries. -Oath.
[7] Pope Pius XI (head of the Catholic Church 1922–1939) issued his first encyclical in 1922. It criticized the unbridled nationalism that he thought was responsible for division and false peace. He condemned the pursuit of national interests at the expense of Christian charity and solidarity. Later (after this essay was written) he issued encyclicals condemning Nazi ideology, fascist glorification of the state, and antisemitism. -Oath.
[8] Latin: “Christian public reality.” -Oath.
[9] Maximilien de Béthune, Duke of Sully (1560–1641), played a role in building a strong, centralized administrative system in France, helping to revitalize the country after the wars of religion. -Oath.
[10] Charles-Irénée Castel, abbé de Saint-Pierre (1658–1743) was a French writer, one of the first to mention the possibility of a European union of independent and autonomous states. -Oath.
[11] French: “Draft treaty to make peace perpetual.” -Oath.
[12] Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) was a German philosopher, one of the central thinkers of the Enlightenment. -Oath.
[13] Journal of the Private Life and Conversations of the Emperor Napoleon at Saint Helena (also known as Memorial de Sainte Helene) by Emmanuel-August-Dieudonné-Joseph, Comte de Las Cases (1766–1842). This book transcribed the author’s near-daily conversations with the former Emperor, first published in 1823 after Napoleon’s death. -Oath.
[14] John Ramsay Bryce Muir (1872–1941), a British historian, politician, and author who published work promoting the international policy of interdependence. -Oath.
[15] Huig de Groot, aka Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) was a Dutch humanist, diplomat, jurist, and writer. -Oath.
[16] On the Law of War and Peace (Paris 1625; Amsterdam 1631). -Oath.
[17] Code of Diplomatic Law of Nations, 2 volumes in Latin (1693 and 1700). -Oath.
[18] Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) was a German mathematician, philosopher, scientist, and diplomat, considered to be “the last universal genius” due to his vast knowledge and expertise across various fields. -Oath.
[19] Samuel von Pufendorf (1632–1694) was a German jurist, political philosopher, economist, and historian. His *De iure naturae et gentium* [On the Law of Nature and Nations], published in 1672, concerned the law of nations and challenged Hobbes’ ideas of the state of nature involving perpetual conflict. He asserted that there is a state of peace in nature, and that international law should create a link between all peoples. -Oath.
[20] Assagioli Archives suggest that this citation refers to Georg Walter, but this editor has not found any information about him. -Oath. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}
[21] The Holy Alliance, also called the Grand Alliance, was a coalition linking the absolute monarchist powers of Austria, Prussia, and Russia which was created in 1815 after the final defeat of Napoleon. The alliance aimed at restraining the spread of secular liberalism in Europe. -Oath.
[22] The First Hague Conference arose from a proposal by Tsar Nicholas II in 1899. The resulting Hague Convention of 1899 produced three main treaties: a convention for peaceful settlement of international disputes, and conventions concerning the laws of war on land and at sea, respectively. The Second Hague Conference in 1907 adopted further agreements. Many of these first international treaties were based on the Lieber Code, issued by American President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 during the American Civil War. As noted by Foerster (see Note 5 above), some countries, notably Germany, worked to ensure that the Second Hague Conference would have little or no effective practical outcome. -Oath.
[23] Giuseppe Mazzini (1805–1872) was an Italian politician, journalist, and activist for the unification of Italy, which occurred with the creation of the Kingdom of Italy in 1861. —Ed.
[24] *The Duties of Man and Other Essays* was published in Italian in 1858 and in English in 1962. This book emphasizes the importance of moral principles and the need for individuals to act with integrity and compassion for the betterment of society. Its sections deal with the relationship of the individual to society, the role of the state in promoting the common good, and the importance of international cooperation. -Oath.
[25] Mazzini, *The Duties of Man* (unnamed translator), London, Chapman & Hall, 1862, pp. 65–66. -Oath. [26] Young Europe eventually included members from France and other countries. This is translated from Assagioli’s rendition, not from an original document. -Oath.
[27] Prince Klemens von Metternich (1773–1859) was a German statesman and diplomat who was the Austrian foreign minister and State Chancellor from 1821 to the revolutions of 1848. He strove to maintain the conservative balance of powers established after the fall of Napoleon and worked to defeat liberalism and democratic movements and revolutions. He was the architect of the Congress of Vienna (1814–1815), which redrew the political map of Europe and aimed to prevent future French expansion. -Oath.
[28] This quote attributed to Metternich is not from any documented source but appeared in various forms in historical commentaries or biographies and appears to reflect his perception of Mazzini. -Oath.
[29] The author had been associated with Theosophy from his youth and was knowledgeable about its ideals and practices. -Oath.
[30] The Vedanta movement refers to the global dissemination of Vedantic philosophy, a tradition within Hinduism which focuses on the wisdom of the Upanishads. It was popularized in the West by the Vedanta Society, founded in 1894 by Swami Vivekananda. -Oath.
[31] Swami Vivekananda (1863–1902) was an Indian Hindu monk, philosopher, religious teacher, and chief disciple of the Indian mystic Ramakrishna. -Oath.
[32] ie World War I, which had ended only four years before this article was written. -Oath.
[33] The League of Nations, as proposed by Wilson, was founded in 1920. —Ed.
[34] This is perhaps an ironic reference to psychologists and other theorists who explained human behavior solely on the basis of instincts and appetites. -Oath.
[35] John Ramsay Bryce Muir, op. cit.—Ed.
[36] Wincenty Lutoslawski (1863–1954) was a Polish philosopher, author, and member of the Polish National League, founded in 1893 on the basis of solidarity of all social classes in order to re-establish the Polish national state, which had been obliterated by the third partition of Poland in 1795. —Ed.
[37] This Congress was held in 1911 in Bologna and featured contributions in multiple languages, providing a space for international scholarly exchange. -Oath.
[38] This term is used to mean a view that spirit is the primary element of reality. -Oath.
[39] The exact source of these words has not been located but they appear to be a paraphrase of ideas contained in Chapter V of Mazzini’s *The Duties of Man*, op. cit.—Ed.
[40] Bolton King (1860–1937) was an English writer who specialized in Italian history. -Oath.
[41] From Bolton King, *The Life of Mazzini*. London, JM Dent, 1912. —Ed. [42] Source unknown. -Oath.
[43] The “Concert of Europe” was a general agreement between the great powers of 19th-century Europe (Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, and the United Kingdom) to maintain the European balance of power. By 1914 it had hardened into two opposing camps whose opposition led to World War I. —Ed.
[44] John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946) was a British economist and philosopher whose ideas fundamentally changed the theory and practice of government economic policies in the 20th century. His book *The Economic Consequences of the Peace* (1919) argued that the punitive peace terms would provoke negative political and economic consequences. – Oath.
[45] Luigi Luzzatti (1841–1927) was an Italian financier, political economist, philosopher, and one-time Prime Minister of Italy. He pioneered social legislation in Italy and initiated important social reforms. – Oath.
[46] Frank A. Vanderlip (1864–1937) was an American banker and journalist. He played a major part in the founding of the Federal Reserve System in the United States, as well as the founding of the first Montessori school in the US He publicly spoke out in defense of the public’s right to know about various issues, including the “Teapot Dome Scandal.” – Oath.
[47] Vanderlip, Frank, *What Next in Europe?* New York, 1922, p. 152. —Author’s Note (translated from Assagioli’s version in Italian).
[48] George D. Herron (1862–1925) was an American clergyman, writer, and Christian socialist activist. He lived much of his life in Italy and Switzerland and acted as an intermediary between Europeans and Americans. – Oath.
[49] Herron, George, *The Defeat in Victory*. London, George Allen & Unwin, 1922. —Author’s Note (translated from Assagioli’s version in Italian).
[50] The League of Nations, proposed by American President Woodrow Wilson, was formed in 1920 and aimed to promote collective security and resolve international disputes. Built upon the Treaty of Versailles, it solidified economic injustices that contributed to its ineffectiveness and the eventual outbreak of World War II. – Oath.
