Bertrand Russell’s 4 fundamental desires that move history
- Rajesh Kumar Jha
Bertrand Russell in his Nobel Acceptance speech in 1950 identified four fundamental human desires that have moved history. These are the motivators which explain a lot of actions that human beings make in the course of their daily lives as human beings, be it a common man or an emperor like.
Russell starts by debunking the idea that resisting human desire ‘in the interest of duty and moral principle’. He calls it a ‘fallacious theory as human activity is prompted by desire. He says that human beings do their duties only because they desire to do their duty. Expanding upon the concept of desire, Russell says that human beings are fundamentally different from animals as they have certain desires which can never by satiated.
‘The boa constrictor, when he has had an adequate meal, goes to sleep, and does not wake until he needs another meal. Human beings, for the most part, are not like this.’
He gives the example of Arabs who even after conquering Eastern Roman Empire and enjoying all the riches one can imagine, did not become inactive. The desires, often insatiable, which keep humans active can be classified into four basic categories-
1. Acquisitiveness
2. Rivalry
3. Vanity
4. Love of Power
Russell goes on to explain that desire to accumulate things, possess things or titles on them is rooted in a ‘combination of fear with the desire for necessaries’. He gives the example of Rockefeller who spent his childhood in great deprivation but in his adult life, his desire to acquire remained unsatiated despite great wealth.
‘ However much you may acquire, you will always wish to acquire more; satiety is a dream which will always elude you.’
Next comes the rivalry. He calls it an even stronger motive than the acquisitiveness. Giving examples of Mohammedan and Modern European history, Russell says,
‘The world would be a happier place than it is if acquisitiveness were always stronger than rivalry. But in fact, a great many men will cheerfully face impoverishment if they can thereby secure complete ruin for their rivals.’
Explaining the power of vanity as a mover of human activity, Russell narrates the story of Renaissance Italian Princeling who, while on his deathbed, was asked by the priest if he repented anything in life. The Princeling replied,
‘There is one thing. On one occasion I had a visit from the Emperor and the Pope simultaneously. I took them to the top of my tower to see the view, and I neglected the opportunity to throw them both down, which would have given me immortal fame’
But the ‘love of power’ has the greatest influence on human actions. Though similar to vanity, love of power is very different from vanity. Vanity can often be satisfied with glory, without any sense of power. Russell takes the example of film stars who enjoy much greater glory than any politician. He says,
‘Many people prefer glory to power, but on the whole these people have less effect upon the course of events than those who prefer power to glory.’
Love of power needs nothing short of omnipotence to satisfy itself. It is the most powerful motive in the lives of important men. Even a petty bureaucrat or ladies in autocratic societies are addicted to this powerful desire. Russell says,
‘Since power over human beings is shown in making them do what they would rather not do, the man who is actuated by love of power is more apt to inflict pain than to permit pleasure. If you ask your boss for leave of absence from the office on some legitimate occasion, his love of power will derive more satisfaction from a refusal than from a consent. If you require a building permit, the petty official concerned will obviously get more pleasure from saying ‘No’ than from saying ‘Yes’. It is this sort of thing which makes the love of power such a dangerous motive.’
However, Russell does not demonise the desire for power as an evil force. Noble ideas like pursuit of knowledge, scientific discoveries are also actuated by love of power. The desire for power turns pernicious or useful depends upon the social system and capacities of the individual.
Moving beyond the four fundamental desires, Russell talks about motives like excitement, fear and hate, altruism and sympathy. He puts love of excitement quite high among these desires calling the desire of escape from boredom as one of the really most powerful desires of human beings. He gives the example of colonisers providing access to liquor and smoke to the natives which, according to Russell, helped them assert their superiority. He counts love of gambling, horse racing, general election among the need for excitement by the human race.
Russell traces the roots of the desire for excitement to our existence as hunters of food. During that phase, the human beings hardly had the occasion or need to get excitement as the life was full of physical labour. At the time human society shifted to agriculture, Russell says,
‘ But when he took to agriculture, and made his wife do all the heavy work in the fields, he had time to reflect upon the vanity of human life, to invent mythologies and systems of philosophy, and to dream of the life hereafter in which he would perpetually hunt the wild boar of Valhalla. Our mental make-up is suited to a life of very severe physical labor.’
Modern life has become even more sedentary and desire for excitement becomes much stronger. Human beings must find ‘ innocent outlet for the unused physical energy that produces love of excitement’, says Russell.
Russell makes fun of the moralists who castigate the desire for excitement who consider theatre, cinema and such means of excitement as sinful. He is in total disagreement with such people. While agreeing that excess in alcohol or gambling is bad and ruinous to the individual, Russell distances himself from such moralists who denigrate the need for excitement:
‘ I find myself unable to be in entire agreement with the grave men who utter these warnings. The devil has many forms, some designed to deceive the young, some designed to deceive the old and serious. If it is the devil that tempts the young to enjoy themselves, is it not, perhaps, the same personage that persuades the old to condemn their enjoyment? And is not condemnation perhaps merely a form of excitement appropriate to old age? And is it not, perhaps, a drug which – like opium – has to be taken in continually stronger doses to produce the desired effect?’
Dissecting the element of fear and hatred in human affairs, Russel says that human beings fear what they hate and they hate what they fear.
‘ The conquest of fear is of very great importance. Fear is in itself degrading; it easily becomes an obsession; it produces hate of that which is feared, and it leads headlong to excesses of cruelty. Nothing has so beneficent an effect on human beings as security. If an international system could be established which would remove the fear of war, the improvement in everyday mentality of everyday people would be enormous and very rapid. Fear, at present, overshadows the world.’
Russell also takes into account positive desires like kindness and sympathy. He agrees that improvement in the lot of people languishing in mental asylums can be ascribed to the act of sympathy which is a genuine motive. Similar is the case for cruelty to animals. He says,
‘ If the fear of war were removed, its effectiveness would become much greater. Perhaps the best hope for the future of mankind is that ways will be found of increasing the scope and intensity of sympathy.’
In his concluding statement, Russell talks about war which continue to retain the motivations of the primitive warfare of exterminating the other tribe but in reality have become extremely expensive.
‘ It is obvious that modern war is not good business from a financial point of view. Although we won both the world wars, we should now be much richer if they had not occurred.’
Russell elevates ‘self-interest’ as a great and noble desire. Human race would have benefited immensely if it was motivating by self-interest. In such a case,
‘ There would be no more wars, no more armies, no more navies, no more atom bombs. There would not be armies of propagandists employed in poisoning the minds of Nation A against Nation B, and reciprocally of Nation B against Nation A. There would not be armies of officials at frontiers to prevent the entry of foreign books and foreign ideas, however excellent in themselves. There would not be customs barriers to ensure the existence of many small enterprises where one big enterprise would be more economic. All this would happen very quickly if men desired their own happiness as ardently as they desired the misery of their neighbours.’
In the final part of his Nobel acceptance address, Russell reserves the strongest words against ‘idealism’ which he says, is just the ‘disguised hatred or disguised love of power’. He concludes,
‘ ...if what I have said is right, the main thing needed to make the world happy is intelligence. And this, after all, is an optimistic conclusion, because intelligence is a thing that can be fostered by known methods of education.’
***