The Advantage
of Cowardice – Bertrand Russell
During the French Revolution, when the Reign
of Terror came to an end, it was found that no one was left alive among the
politicians except prudent cowards who had changed their opinions quickly enough
to keep their heads on their shoulders. The result was twenty years of military
glory, because there was no one left among the politicians with sufficient
courage to keep the generals in order. The French Revolution was an exceptional
time, but wherever organisation exists cowardice will be found more advantageous
than courage. Of the men at the head of businesses, schools and lunatic asylums,
and the like, nine out of ten will prefer the supple lickspittle to the
outspoken man of independent judgement. In politics it is necessary to profess
the party programme and flatter the leaders; in the navy it is necessary to
profess antiquated views on naval strategy; in the army it is necessary to
maintain a mediaeval outlook on everything; in journalism wage slaves have to
use their brains to give expression to the opinions of millionaires; in
education professors lose their jobs if they do not respect the prejudices of
the illiterate.
The result of this state of affairs is that in practically every walk of life
the men who come to the top have served a long apprenticeship in cowardice,
while the honest and courageous have to be sought for in workhouses and prisons.
Is this regrettable?
The modern world, owing to industrialism, requires social co-operation more than
it was required in any earlier stage in the world's history. Now there are three
reasons for which you may co-operate with a man: Because you love him and
because you fear him, or because you hope to share the swag. These three motives
are of differing importance in different regions of human co-operation: The
first governs procreation, and the third governs politics. But the ordinary
everyday business of government, whether in the state or in any other social
institution, depends upon fear. A collection of fearless men would be
ungovernable. The Vikings were men whom the King of Norway found ungovernable;
They left Norway because they would not submit themselves to his sway. After a
few centuries of adventure, they became peasants in the frozen valleys of
lceland.
Consider, as a contrast, the great Duke of Marlborough. He secured the first
steps in his career by causing his sister to become the mistress of James II.
His great days were due to the passionate friendship between his wife and Queen
Anne. Whenever he fought the French he beat them, but he was always ready to
refrain from fighting if the King of France made it worth his while. He left a
great name, and a great fortune, and his descendants to this day are patterns
for patriots. The arts of success have changed little since his day, in spite of
the nominal advent of democracy. Now, as in the past, if you wish for success
you should be insinuating and pusillanimous rather than bold and self-reliant.
To those, therefore, whose ambition it is to die in the odour of sanctity,
respected by bank managers, admired by friends and neighbours, and universally
regarded as models of what a citizen should be, my advice is: Don't express your
own opinions but those of your boss; Don't endeavour to realise ends which you
yourself think good, but pursue rather those aimed at by some organisation
supported by millionaires; In your private friendships select influential men if
you can, or and failing that, men whom you judge likely to become influential.
Do this, and you will win the good opinion of all the best elements in the
community.
This is sound advice, but for my part, I would sooner die than follow it.
Bertrand Russell.
[From: Mortals and Others, v.1, 1975.]
For Home:
