BIO: Kenneth Boulding, Quaker economist for peace (19 May 1993) KENNETH BOULDING, QUAKER ECONOMIST FOR PEACE (19 MAY 1993) This series includes biographical sketches of about ten Quakers. Most sketches are accompanied by sections on various topics related to the Quaker movement. A Table of contents, enabling the reader to find material on various Quakers and various aspects of Quakerism, can be reached by clicking . A reading list, sorted according to topic, can be reached by clicking . $$$ KENNETH BOULDING Kenneth Boulding (rhymes with "folding") was born in Liverpool <53:25 N 2:25 W>, England, in 1910, came to the United States in 1937, became a US citizen in 1948, and died 19 May 1993. He was a distinguished economist, and served as President of the American Economics Association in 1968. Although he made his professional reputation by his work in straightforward economic analysis, he is also known for his application of economic principles to the study of interpersonal and group relationships and conflict resolution. He was Director of the Center for Research in Conflict Resolution at the University of Michigan, in Ann Arbor <42:18 N 83:43 W>. A list of some of his books currently in print is found in the general bibliography at the end of this article. His wife, Elise Marie Boulding, is a sociologist who is also known for dealing with the relationship between Quaker principles and her professional discipline. The next few paragraphs are quotations from the essay, "Economic Life," contributed by Boulding to the book, THE QUAKER APPROACH. The history of the application of the Quaker experience in the realm of economic life presents a curious paradox. On the one hand we do not find the apparently clear-cut "testimony" which is found in the peace testimony.... On the great question of socialism versus capitalism, for instance, the Quaker trumpet seems to speak with an uncertain sound. The attitude of Friends toward socialism apparently reflects very different illuminations of the Inward Light. It is possible for ex-President Herbert Hoover, one of the staunchest defenders of capitalism, and Darlington Hoopes, 1952 Presidential candidate of the Socialist Party, both to be members in good standing of the Society of Friends. Yet looked at more closely, this dispersion is not unreasonable, but follows naturally from the nature of Quaker religion and culture. On the one hand, the urge toward brotherhood and the dominance in the Quaker ethic of the concept of universal love leads to a yearning for a familistic type of society, a reaction against the apparent impersonality and lovelessness of the market economy, and an inclination towards socialism. On the other hand, the religious individualism of the Quaker, the reaction against the collectivism of an authoritarian church, the insistence on "private enterprise" in religious experience, and the whole tenor of an "unmediated," first-hand religion leads to an uneasiness with collective action, a mistrust of the state, and a tendency to look toward individual enterprise and the market economy which fosters it as the economic counterpart of that direct approach to God which is the heart of Quaker religion. It is the tension between the Quaker ethic pulling toward collectivism and the Quaker religion pulling toward individualism which explains the wide divergence of attitude within the Society on this matter. New insights into the nature of economic development also make a reassessment of economic history necessary, especially of the Industrial Revolution, which was nothing like such a dismal affair as some economic historians have made out. The picture of "dark satanic mills" befouling the smiling and prosperous countryside does not stand up very well in the face of what we now know about the falling death rates, the improvement in health and nutrition, and the amazing expansion in the expectation of life which follow everywhere upon the heels of the technical revolution. In reacting against the censorious imposition of ancient and perhaps meaningless standards of consumption, we have relaxed our mutual disciplining of each other to the point where there seems to be no machinery in the usual Meeting, even for the discussion of these problems. Yet if our whole lives are indeed to be testimonies to our religious experience, it is clear that the kind of houses we live in, the kind of clothes that we wear, the kind of vehicles that we use, the kind of hospitality we indulge in, and the kind of property that we own often speak in louder, clearer tones than the words we say. If there are areas of life into which we do not admit the light of the Spirit, that light itself will dim upon us. It is for no man, of course, to prescribe for another what he should do, or how the leaven of the spirit should operate in his life. If one feels called to earn a fairly comfortable, conventional income and to live in a house that permits the exercise of hospitality, it is not for another to criticize him. One would also like to see, however, the growth of more spartan and spiritually athletic groups, living a life stripped of all nonessentials, a little more aloof from the "world" than the rest of us, experimenting in many new modes of living and standards of consumption. This is of particular importance to American Friends, who so often slip into a dependence on high standards of consumption which unconsciously, alienates them from people in less fortunate parts of the world. There are two great concepts around which the life of Quakerism revolves: enterprise and brotherhood. The spirit of enterprise is that which leads into more knowledge and power, and into better ways of doing things, whether producing an article or producing fellowship and community spirit. It leads into social experiments of all kinds by seeking out better ways not only of making things but of living together. The spirit of brotherhood leads into peaceableness, into the search for ways of reducing tensions, and of eliminating oppression in all its forms. It sees economic and social life as an essentially co-operative structure, an arrangement for mutual aid. It goes beyond this and sees society as an expression of love and concern of all for all, in which the needs of those who cannot contribute are met as well as the needs of the contributors. Between enterprise and brotherhood there should always exist a creative tension. It is enterprise which leads to wealth and power, not only for the individual but for the society as a whole. Without enterprise, brotherhood is an impotent sentiment. Without brotherhood, however, enterprise leads to oppression and wealth leads to damnation in the satisfaction of inferior desires. This is true under any kind of economic or social system. And separated from God, separated from the sensitizing of the spirit in worship and communion with the source of all love and truth, enterprise leads to damnation in pride, brotherhood leads to damnation in sentimentality. This remains the most important thing which the Society of Friends has to say, even in the field of economics. $$$ QUAKERS AND PACIFISM In Boswell's JOHNSON, under 28 April 1783, we find the following entry: JOHNSON: I do not see, Sir, that fighting is absolutely forbidden in the Scripture; I see revenge forbidden, but not self-defense. BOSWELL: The Quakers say it is. "Unto him that smiteth thee on one cheek, offer him also the other." [Matthew 5:39] JOHNSON: But stay, Sir, the text is meant only to have the effect of moderating passion; it is plain that we are not to take it in a literal sense. We see this from the context, where there are other recommendations, which I warrant you, the Quaker will not take literally: as, for instance, "from him that would borrow of thee turn thou not away." [Matthew 5:42] Let a man whose credit is bad come to a Quaker and say, "Well, Sir, lend me a hundred pounds;" he'll find him as unwilling as any other man. Pacifism as a Quaker principle was a development. Many early Quakers served in Cromwell's army with no apparent sense of inconsistency. As far as we know, Fox never rebuked anyone for joining the army, or recruiting others to do so. However, in 1650 Fox was in prison, and was offered an early release if he would become a captain in Cromwell's army. He wrote afterward: "I told them that I knew whence all wars arose, even from the lust, according to James's doctrine [James 4:1], and I lived in the virtue of that life and power that took away the occasion of wars." Ingle (p121f) writes of a statement made by Fox early in 1655, when he had been brought to London under arrest for disrupting church services. Informed that Fox had arrived safely, Cromwell requested an immediate assurance that he would not take up arms against his government. On March 5, the same day he got word of what the Protector desired, Fox composed the first public version of what would become known among his followers as the "Peace Testimony." "I do deny," he began, "the carrying or drawing of any carnal sword against any or against you Oliver Cromwell." Thus the politically astute Fox sought to reassure the nation's leader that he, and by extension the Children of the Light, represented no armed threat to the status quo. He also indicated that while he was personally opposed to participating in war, he recognized and accepted the authority of the state to use the sword. It was, he wrote, "a terror to the evil doers who act contrary to the light of the lord Jesus Christ." "The magistrate," he said bluntly, "bears not the sword in vain." [Romans 13:3-4] Unlike plotters such as Fifth Monarchists, Fox rejected "wicked inventions of men and murderous plots," but he did so not because he opposed the ends they sought as much as the means they used. He favored "establishing of righteousness and cleansing the land of evil-doers," but these goals would be achieved by dwelling in the light "that is immortal [and] that fades no away." Left unsaid was whether he would endorse establishing a righteous state minus plotting, of course that would turn its carnal sword against evil. Hence Fox was not a pacifist in the modern sense that he utterly rejected participating in all wars and violent conflicts. He could not imagine himself bearing the sword, at least under present circumstances he spurned a "mortal crown" like the one some wanted Cromwell to put on but he also recognized that someone must wield the sword against evildoers. For a different interpretation of Fox's views, see Peter Brock, THE QUAKER PEACE TESTIMONY, 1660 TO 1914; York, England: Sessions Book Trust, 1990. In 1657, when Cromwell had won a series of spectacular military victories against the Scots, the Irish, and the Portuguese, Fox wrote a manifesto urging him to make use of his God-given powers to force the Pope and the Moslems to give up their heathenish practices. However, his conviction that Cromwell was the Lord's Anointed soon vanished in disappointment at Cromwell's policies. In 1660, soon after Charles II had been crowned, Fox issued a statement on why Quakers did not take oaths. In it he declared that the sword might be rightly used by a monarch, but only in a war against the devil and his works. As an example of such a war, he urged the king to suppress maygames and theatrical performances. After the Fifth Monarchy uprising of 1661 (Gregorian Calendar), in order to reassure the King that they had no plans to overthrow the government by force, Fox and one Richard Hubberthorne drew up a Declaration signed by them and ten other leading Quakers, and presented it to the King. The crucial passage is: All bloody principles and practices as we to our own particular do utterly deny, with all outward wars and strife and fightings with outward weapons for any end or under any pretense whatsoever; this is our testimony to the whole world. The Spirit of Christ by which we are guided, is not changeable, so as once to command us from a thing of evil, and again to move us into it; and we do certainly know, and so testify to the world, that the spirit of Christ, which leads us into all Truth, will never move us to fight and war against any man with outward weapons, neither for the kingdom of Christ, nor for the kingdoms of this world. Therefore we cannot learn war any more. Thus we can say to the world, we have wronged no man, we have used no force nor violence against any man: we have been found in no plots, nor guilty of sedition. When we have been wronged, we have not made resistance against authority; but whenever we could not obey for conscience sake, we have suffered the most of any people in the nation. When Quakers speak of the Peace Testimony, they generally refer either to the Declaration from which the previous passage is quoted, or to the position expressed by it. DET writes: In no known instance did the earliest exponents of the Quaker faith deal with a question such as that which arose, before the start of World War II, in the persecution of the Jews and the existence of concentration camps involving torture. The issue was uniformly stated in terms of what the individual should do when he becomes the personal object of attack or aggression, rather than in terms of what the Christian's duty may be when the victim is a third party. Most of the inhabitants of any state are by no means ready for a program of nonresistance which would, indeed, be meaningless to them. We must, then, as realists, recognize the state they are in. The best decision, in practice, is not the abstract best, but is always the best under the circumstances. "And, therefore, while they are in that condition," wrote Barclay in a memorable sentence, "we shall not say that war, undertaken upon a just occasion, is altogether unlawful to them." The early Quaker Isaac Penington wrote in 1661 that the best situation, on the individual level, is that a man, touched by the Spirit of Christ, turns the other cheek when smitten. We may look forward to a time when whole nations, touched by the Spirit of Christ, will respond similarly as nations, a time when "the gospel will teach a whole nation (if they hearken to it) as well as a particular person, to trust the Lord and to wait on him for preservation." But in this present time, "I speak not this against any magistrate's or people's defending themselves against foreign invasions, or making use of the sword to suppress the violent and evil doers within their borders (for this the present estate of things may and doth require, and a great blessing will attend the sword where it is borne uprightly to that end, and its use will be honourable; and while there is need of a sword, the Lord will not suffer that government, or those governors, to want fitting instruments under them for the managing thereof, to wait on him in his fear to have the edge of it rightly directed); but yet there is a better state which the Lord hath already brought some into, and which nations are to travel towards." D Elton Trueblood writes (in about 1971): It is obvious, for example, that the existence of the United States Fleet, in the Taiwan Straits, PREVENTS an invasion of either the Communists or the Nationalists. It would be an extremely confused lover of peace who wished for the elimination of the means of prevention of something that would involve untold murder and violence. It may be noted that Trueblood quotes Penington's statement as clarifying the Peace Testimony; but that Ingle considers that Penington's statement was intended as a reply to the Testimony, and that Penington avowedly disagreed with it, and cannot be said to hold what is now the Quaker position. E B Castle (APPROACH TO QUAKERISM, London, 1961) writes: The Quaker dilemma, as far as I can see, can be resolved in two ways. In the first place the Quaker witness against all war must be maintained, because it is founded on Christian truth and because this truth must be declared. The educative value of this persistent witness has been shown in its increasingly wide acceptance among other branches of the Christian Church. In all great causes there must be pioneers whose function it is to point the way. Otherwise the world remains forever in the realm of the second-best, governed by expedients that can never hold back the flood of evil. On the other hand, it is of the utmost importance that Friends should recognize the nature of the responsibilities of men who hold positions Friends themselves would not feel free to occupy. Brayshaw writes: If the Quakers were in on the ground floor of every domestic and international dispute, they have a remedy which they think would work. They use it in every other relation of life and it works. Love wins out every time in dealing with normal beings. But in the exceptional case, when dealing with a foe beyond the reach of intelligence and kindness, the Quaker will be killed, and he realizes that fact. But in being killed, he will not have betrayed every ideal that he holds dear. Do not misunderstand the Quaker's position on this point: he does not claim that his method will ALWAYS work, but he does claim that it works in most cases, having the backing of eternal moral forces; whereas the method of armed resistance cannot be successful in more than fifty per cent of the cases, and has to take all the loss of moral treasure in addition. In the French and Indian War, around 1756, the Quakers held a majority in the legislature of Pennsylvania. They had to choose between supervising the civilian war effort of the colony, and resigning office and abandoning political power. They chose the latter. The following (non-consecutive) paragraphs are quoted from the essay "Peace and War," contributed by Henry J Cadbury to the book THE QUAKER APPROACH, edited by Kavanaugh. Difficult and sometime all-absorbing as is the abstention in act and thought from consent to war, the conscientious pacifist or Quaker counts this as much less than his whole duty. He is constrained to do more than avoid evil doing. He must "Depart from evil and do good; Seek peace and pursue it." The positive requirements of his position are the more weighty as he believes that he is called upon to bear testimony by work and example to the more excellent way.... Yet experience shows that alliances of this kind [with other peace groups] are sometimes not lasting. Official peace societies have changed so as to condone or encourage war. Some movements of our time are so plainly politically or partisanly oriented as to be fosterers of war--hot or cold. To many Friends in 1951 both the Stockholm Petition and the Crusade for Freedom appeared to be equivalent examples. Organizations on behalf of the League of Nations or the United Nations insofar as they support military sanctions hardly agreed with a Quaker condemnation of all wars. It has always been possible in time of war to persuade certain kinds of peace lovers that this particular war was for securing a permanent peace. Opposition to war, like alliance for war, produces strange bedfellows. One recalls the time after World War I when an association for the prevention of war, largely supported by Friends, found that the brewers, afraid of the return to America of war-time prohibition, were lending it financial support. John Bright, the British Quaker, as a member of the Parliament and of the Cabinet, was a steadfast spokesman for peaceful policies.... It has been said of John Bright that he "carefully and explicitly met the advocates of each war on their own ground, and showed that even on their principles it was to be condemned." One aim of [a friendly visit to representatives of the other side] is to mollify the war fever of one's own community, as when Caleb Pusey in 1688 went right into an Indian encampment that was said to be plotting attack and found the warriors all disarmed or absent on civil pursuits, or when in 1798 George Logan went singlehanded to France and came back with terms of peace so satisfactory that the war party in the American Congress had no excuse to start a war.