Thoughts on the Ideas Discussed in the Second Epilogue of War & Peace, Regarding the Driving Force Behind Historical Events
Tolstoy's War and Peace is unique in that it stands out as a grand novel, a verified historical account, and an in-depth analysis of that account. Below are some tentative additions and counterarguments to certain points Tolstoy makes. With due respect to his analysis, his thoughts are intriguing enough to warrant further exploration.
"To find component forces equal to the composite or resultant force, the sum of the components must equal the resultant."
The quotation suggests that the elusive power driving civilizations to glory and ruin is essentially the sum of a number of definite components. This leads Tolstoy to conclude that, since the various factors identified by historians seem insufficient to account for the extremes observed in human history, there must be an exceedingly influential yet unidentified additional component governing our actions.
In historical context, it is possible that the multitude of ripples can produce a tidal wave greater than the sum of its parts. This is because the phenomena being studied are a product of the collective psychological state of a nation. It is the collective needs, desires, fears, joys, and sufferings of the faceless, anonymous masses that prompt new ideas to germinate and endow leaders with their influence.
Given that social and political change is driven by something as fickle and unpredictable as public opinion, a purely scientific analogy would be inapplicable. We are not so rational and objective a species that our motivations, influences, and ambitions can be plausibly quantified and reduced to a simple formula. We latch onto vague mottos and empty promises and, through the wild power stored in the collective mind, invest vast quantities of this power in ideas and figures that, viewed rationally by an individual, do not merit it.
The mysterious factor that amplifies the value of other components could very well be the psychological state of the populace, as the value of the components is influenced by and fluctuates with the collective psyche of the people. Thus, the force driving historical change is not a static sum but a dynamic, ever-evolving phenomenon shaped by the collective mind of society.
"How is it that Louis XIV ended tranquilly, while Louis XVI was executed by his people? Why did they react only to Louis XVI? And what is the term for such reactions? To these questions, there are, and can be, no answers."
One factor governing the population’s actions that ought to be considered is, for lack of a better term, popular sloth or inertia.
The overturning and transfer of power requires a level of activity that is not sustainable enough to be consistent throughout history. Power may be granted to a leader or exchanged between several leaders for a period. But inevitably, the turbulent national mood subsides, and, exhausted by their exertions, the people enter a stage of passivity and submission. This is as natural as tiredness after prolonged mental or physical work.
Once asleep, a nation is only roused by exceptional circumstances and will often tolerate a considerable amount of oppression and maltreatment before it awakens. It is reasonable to suggest that under Louis XIV, people were simply accustomed to a system of absolute monarchy and took it as a matter of course – many of us are not critical thinkers with a rebellious turn of mind but creatures of habit preoccupied with securing our personal interests in the given circumstances. However, if the circumstances become too dire for too long, the beast’s eyes snap open, discovering that the effort of revolting is less painful than the suffering endured. A desperate person is a dangerous one.
Louis XVI was unfortunate enough to inherit a kingdom near breaking point. His predecessors’ decisions and his clear intention to make similar decisions rendered him highly vulnerable to revolution. Spurred on by prolonged suffering and, importantly, by the radical ideas of thinkers like Voltaire and Rousseau, something snapped in the collective mind. They may have endured Louis XIV’s relatively peaceful reign, but Louis XVI pushed them too far by maintaining the status quo of aristocratic excess and mass poverty.
“If the force that moves nations lies not in the historic leaders but in the nations themselves, what significance have those leaders?”
This is perhaps a semi-rhetorical question, but worth considering nonetheless.
A leader, in the eyes of the people, serves as the perfect embodiment of the ideology they advocate, providing it with a tangible focal point for its high-minded aspirations. This makes the aim appear more real and attainable, which is an invaluable source of hope. A single individual embodying a belief system is crucial not only for its ideological representation but also for practical reasons. Such a person serves as a spokesperson and unifies efforts, effectively rallying collective action.
Moreover, a leader gives us a purpose and makes us feel that we are achieving it: “Someone’s doing something about this important issue and I support them, so I’m doing something important, too.” It can also be argued that a leading figure satisfies people’s psychological need to follow, stemming from a more fundamental need for security. Being part of a group led by a strong figure provides individuals with a sense of safety and stability.
History, as Tolstoy himself acknowledges in the broader narrative of War and Peace, is not merely the product of individual leaders or concrete motivations but a tapestry woven from the unpredictable behavior of societies. The novel itself is a testament to the idea that history is not linear or easily reducible. It is driven by the passions, fears, and desires of the individual and the collective in relation to one another, each ripple bouncing off the others and bringing about change in sometimes unexpected ways.
Comments