Quack, Quack

Introduction

Quack, Quack! was written by Leonard Woolf in 1935 and expresses his views on fascism and the current state of governments in Europe. In it he condemns intellectuals such as Carlyle and Sprenger for their influence on Hitler and Mussolini and their respective governments. Woolf places himself in opposition of Hitler and Mussolini by criticizing their fascist governments and their policies directly, but also through his criticisms of Carlyle's writings and stances on religion and racism in particular. It can be determined that he aligns himself more with the views of humanity that John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith take, and also with Mill's socialist leanings. Woolf specifically attacks the language and religion of fascist intellectual quacks.

Carlyle - Fascism

Carlyle:

• Scottish Calvinist
• believed in the necessity of Heroes and hero worship
• blamed the Jewish people for social problems without providing any real evidence
• conducted experiments to prove Jewish inferiority and drew conclusions from assumed ideas
• used hatred and bias to unite
• believed that lesser people needed guidance from their superiors to stay human, if not they would degenerate to animals

• feudalism- few rule, against democracy
• backed Gov. Eyre
• "proto-fascist... [advocated] compulsory military drilling, the reinstatement of servitude/serfdom for blacks and other "servant" races" [1]
• philosophies closer to romanticism than Calvinism
• accused by Woolf of sadism and simple hatred

What Woolfe says about Fascism:

• relies on charismatic, emotional, passionate leader
• requires that people give up on rational thought and blindly accept the word of the state
• depends on people's primal urges

Smith/Mill branch

John Stuart Mill was a utlitarian economist whose "greatest happiness principle" closely resembled the Christian Golden Rule. The greatest happiness principle held that people would engage in the actions that provided the greatest happiness to the greatest amount of people. It definedthe sympathetic nature of humans, and also the potential of humans for improvement. Human potential, for Adam Smith, who can be placed on the same thought-branch as Mill, increased as rationality increased. Both Smith and Mill believed in the potential for humans to improve, and Smith articulated that improvement required rational thought. The two can also be classified as analytical egalitarians, believing all men equal. As such, they are often aligned with Christian evangelicals, although they do not share all of the same beliefs. The greatest happiness principle and equality of man are the main similarities. Mill "secularized" Christianity in that he did not take their belief that all men are equal because they are created in the image of God, he believed all men began with the same resources and differences between men came from "division of labor" (Smith's definition). But because of Mill's belief that there is no difference between the "street porter and the philosopher" (Smith's comparison), he became engaged in a debate with Carlyle over Carlyle's essay on the Negro Question. Their debate was published in Fraser's magazine. Carlyle laid down arguments that subjugated blacks to a bestial status, while Mill believed that this was impossible. Smith and Mill defined humanity by man's ability to speak and to trade. Humans that spoke were not beasts, and language indicated civilization. Mill also opposed Carlyle in the Governor Eyre controversy. Governor Eyre had control of Jamaica and put down a rebellion of natives in an excessively violent manner, ending in executions. Mill was a member of the Jamaica Committee, whose purpose was to convict Governor Eyre for his racist actions. Carlyle defended Governor Eyre, based on his previous assertions made in the Negro Question.

Woolf's oppostion to Carlyle

• appropriation of religious facade- Christianity thinly veils primal "magic" and hero-worship
• racism for no reason- make conclusions about Jews
• language of so-called intellectuals (such as Sprenger and Keyserling) marks them as quacks
• dictatorships of Mussolini and Hitler- like oligarchy
• "divine" rulers- like hero-worship
• divinity of king or dictator is primal, to make the people feel better

Woolf's agreements with Smith/Mill

In Quack, Quack! Woolf makes his opposition of Carlyle and like-minded "intellectuals" clear, and if his arguments can be examined further, comparisons can be made between Woolf, and Smith and Mill. Just as Smith articulated the hypothesis of no-difference between the "street porter and the philosopher," so does Woolf distrust "intellectuals." Levy and Peart also question scholars and their motivations, operating under the assumption that division of labor is the only difference among men. Woolf's distrust of intellectuals stems from his mockery of their language. He especially criticizes the writings of Keyserling and Sprenger. He accuses them of intellectual quackery, saying that their writing looks impressive to the unintelligent, but intelligent people see it for the quackery it is. Language indicates humanity to Woolf, as it does to Smith and Mill. Civilization is the way to combat quackery, according to Woolf, and civilization requires language and above all, reason and rational thought. Woolf also notes that civilizations "ebb" and change over time, supporting a belief in human potential. However, Woolf takes a more pessimistic view and sees human potential to destroy society and descend back into savagery after civilizations are raised. Science and literature are both distorted by intellectuals, who are considered quacks in Woolf's view, and this is why civilization begins its downturn. Smith and Mill would agree that rationality and science are keys to human improvement. Woolf is against the use of Jews as scapegoats, and this can be attributed to a belief similar to Smith and Mill's belief in the equality of all men. Hitler's persecution of Jews, which could have taken inspiration from Galton's "experiments" and suspect conclusions on Jewish intelligence in the 1880's, seems to Woolf to lead society back into savagery because it does include rational thought, but rather it is arbitrary and used for the government's purposes. Mill's Jamaica Committee opposed persecution of blacks in Jamaica, just as Woolf opposed persecution of Jews. Woolf also uses the Governor Eyre controversy to mock Carlyle and show Carlyle's illogical hate.

References

• Levy, David M. 2001. How the dismal science got its name. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

• Peart, Sandra J., and David M. Levy. 2005. The "vanity of the philosopher". Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

• Woolf, Leonard. 1935. Quack, quack!.

• http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism