In War and Peace epilogue, published in 1869, Russian writer Leo Tolstoy answers different questions. Two of them are very important in this part of the book, and are explored by Erin Greer in his article “Tolstoy and Tahrir”, in which he connects War and Peace to the “Arab Spring”. Those two questions are (1) “Who makes History?” and (2) “Is Man free within this History?”; Tolstoy and Greer use them to try to understand how History really led to the current events (in their respective times), and what makes people rise up against or, on the contrary, submit unconditionally to a ruler. Hence it will be useful to analyze the answers Tolstoy gives to these questions, how Greer uses it to explain the Arab Spring in Egypt, and what it leads us to in the understanding of the march of History.
First of all, Tolstoy denounces the way historians consider the main actors of History. In the first part of the epilogue he explains that great men are just a part of a succession of events. He uses the example of Napoleon’s ascension to the head of a French Empire to explain it. Actually, he writes that Napoleon’s actions took place in a general movement of History that began with the French Revolution. Historians say that Napoleon went to Russia, but Tolstoy insists on the fact that this is the whole French army, the whole France, the whole Europe which participated in this military campaign. Tolstoy uses a lot of metaphor to explain his theories. One of them if represented in the second part of the epilogue by the fact that the ruler is on a bark, and this bark’s movement is always anticipated by the waves, which are the people. It means that rulers do not move by themselves. Their actions take place amongst the general movement of History and peoples. This metaphor is used by Greer in his article to show that the Egyptian Revolution took place without leaders. The Western media tried to put a face on this Revolution, according to our usual way of seeing History, but it was not useful, since this uprising had no face. Time Magazine understood that when it declared “The Protester” as person of the year 2011. Thus, “Kings are slaves of History”. I think that this way of considering History is the most actual, so the best, since the aim of History is to relate facts. But I think also that what Tolstoy and Greer elude the fact that History is always built afterwards. Tolstoy may have written too early to consider this fact. During the XIX Century, European countries worked to build themselves a Nation, which had to have its own History. Actually, France created its own Republican History, taught in every Republican school, as Germany created his own Imperial History. This History had to be easily understandable, and that is why governments created national heroes and historical figures. This political and artificial creation of the roman national is eluded by Tolstoy and Greer. Historians do not forget to speak about people; they do it on purpose, to achieve the goal History: create a national unity with historical heroes.
Tolstoy spends lot of lines and metaphor to give us his answer to the question of human freedom. This answer is very close to the first one. Since people are the cause of History, they cannot individually act to influence on this History. Or, as Greer explains according to the second part of the epilogue, everyone acts for History without knowing it. Tolstoy vision of History is very close to Hegel’s one. History has a direction, it has an unknown aim; people are submitted to this purpose of History, and act in its way without even noticing it. Tolstoy, and then Greer, explains that Man’s actions are motivated by freedom or, on the opposite, by necessity. But Man cannot be free, because he is burdened with necessity. Hence Man’s actions are determined by what Tolstoy calls “the law of inevitability”. This law explains that Man cannot act against the will of History. Thus he is absolutely not free, but has to feel that way to pursue the goal of History. So everything fits together. Individuals cannot influence History because they are submitted to a greater scale of History’s purpose. Thus they are not free, since they are submitted to this purpose. The metaphor of the bark on the sea is useful, since it explains that, as a ship cannot act against the will of waves, individuals cannot act against the will of History. I think that this vision of History is very arguable. It is based on a very absolute vision of freedom, which is totally destroyed when you enter the civil society. The vision of a Contrat Social by which people give away freedom to be protected is way too simplistic for me. If you consider humans as finished beings, they for sure are not free at all. But I don’t think we can have a so absolute vision of freedom. I think Tolstoy’s “consciousness” vision of liberty, which he disagrees with, is actually right, because you cannot consider the concept of freedom outside society, while Man is unconceivable outside society. Thus, the basis on which we consider freedom should be for men integrated within a greater group of men, because it is the essence of humanity. If you consider freedom in the point of view of the civilized man, then Man is free to act. Without society, there is no man, without men, there is no freedom. Hence it is non-sense to consider freedom without considering society.
No comments:
Post a Comment