Bertrand Russell: Philosophy, Made in Wales
Reflection — By Erin Norman on January 17, 2010 7:00 am
Bertrand Russell: “The secret to happiness is to face the fact that the world is horrible.”
WHEN BERTRAND RUSSELL, one of the founders of analytic philosophy, Nobel prize winner, activist and outright rebel received the Order of Merit, in the King’s Birthday Honours of 1949, it neatly demonstrated how confused the establishment were about, arguably, Britain’s finest ever philosopher.
On awarding the honour King George VI is said to have remarked ‘You have sometimes behaved in a manner that would not do if generally adopted.’ Russell remained silent in response but later admitted he was tempted to reply, ‘That’s right, just like your brother’.
The brother in question was of course Edward VIII – of Wallis Simpson fame.
That such confusion exists in the mind of the establishment is unsurprising. What is, perhaps, more surprising is the ambivalence that this man, one of Wales’s finest exports, inspires in Welsh people. He was, and remains, a Welsh national treasure. A hero for these, and indeed any other times.
Bertrand Russell was born at Cleddon Hall in Trellech in 1872 and died at his home, Plas Penrhyn in Penrhyndeudraeth, in 1970. In the 98 intervening years he broke every mould that attempted to shape him, examined each aspect of our tumultuous world that his agile brain chanced upon, and fought against a wide range of inequalities and injustices. Through it all he retained a wry sense of humour – one which he turned on himself almost as much as he did the world at large.
Russell was a polymath; a renaissance man with an astonishingly wide field of study. The range of topics that he claimed an expertise in was manifold. In fact on the subject of happiness he said, “Let your interests be as wide and varied as possible, and let your reactions to the things and persons that interest you be as far as possible friendly rather than hostile.”
Never an advocate of absolutes, Russell was a voracious seeker after truth, and one of the most opinionated specimens that humanity has ever produced. His study ranged widely from the evolution of science through to mathematics, religion, sex, government, ethics, humanitarianism, technology and much else. Thankfully he was as prolific a writer as he was a reader. And, it is this extensive body of work that allows us to bring his ideas and opinions vividly to life today.
With that wealth of information in mind it’s worth asking “What would Bertrand say?” about some of the issues facing Wales in 2010. Russell is a Welsh national treasure. But he is not the sort of treasure to remain under lock and key, only to be gazed upon whilst respectfully filing past. This is philosophy to be used – to be applied. After all, “Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible. Thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought is great and swift and free.”
Russell was known for his contempt of typical governmental procedures. He didn’t like being told what to do and he didn’t like bullies. He believed, passionately, that the balance of power in society was wrong. It was this hostile attitude to the power of ‘big’ government that made him a natural supporter of the idea of devolved government, which he saw as more representative and less distant from the people it was most likely to affect. In Proposed Roads to Freedom (1918) he wrote:
Government by majorities can be made less oppressive by devolution, by placing the decision of questions primarily affecting only a section of the community in the hands of that section, rather than of a Central Chamber. In this way, men are no longer forced to submit to decisions made in a hurry by people mostly ignorant of the matter in hand and not personally interested. Autonomy for internal affairs should be given, not only to areas, but to all groups, such as industries or Churches, which have important common interests not shared by the rest of the community.
In short, the idea of remote and abstracted government ruling its people from a distance was anathema to Russell. Government that was more localised and based in smaller communities and areas would allow for a relative increase in the liberty of its subjects.
Devolution was an integral part of Russell’s political philosophy, and one that he applied equally to local and national governments. It is hard to imagine him viewing the limits currently applied to the Welsh Assembly with anything but frustration. Though doubtless he would have viewed said institution as a valuable step forward, the idea of its power being curtailed by a larger and more remote seat of power would not have met with his approval.
Russell truly loved Wales; whenever he refers to his home country in his autobiography it is with a sense of homecoming, peace and camaraderie. In the late 1950s, while Russell was working flat-out in opposition to nuclear proliferation, (The Russell-Einstein Manifesto having been signed in 1955), he received news that his eldest son was ill. Russell made arrangements to move the whole family to Plas Penryhn, a house that he’d recently purchased in North Wales. He loved it because “Above all, it had a most lovely view, south to the sea, west to Portmadoc and the Caernarvon hills, and north to the valley of the Glasslyn to Snowdon. I was captivated by it…” Russell said that despite the fact that his work required him to travel often to cities, he was never happier than when in the countryside. He had great respect for his fellow countrymen and women, and indeed found it easier to discuss pacifism, liberalism and political philosophy in the Welsh mining communities than he did in London.
It is, perhaps, on the subject of religion which Russell divides opinions most. His attitude is neatly summed up with the enigmatic phrase, “Sin is geographical.” When Russell was asked toward the end of his life, what he would do if, when he died, he did in fact find himself before God, he answered, “I should reproach Him for not giving us enough evidence.” Russell didn’t believe that an individual required religion in order to be morally ‘good’, saying in his book ‘Why I am not a Christian’ that, ‘Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.’
In 21st century Wales, every major religion is represented, as well as a number of others. In addition to this approximately 1 in 6 of the population claims no religion whatsoever.
Long before the appearance of Christianity, Wales was a place full of spiritual wonder and beliefs. Faith is still very much a live topic in Wales, and it speaks highly for the enlightened attitude of the Welsh that so many different philosophies are able to coexist primarily peacefully. The challenges of a multicultural and multi-faith society wouldn’t have troubled Russell unduly – but racism, protectionism and right wing nationalism would have. What he would have made of the BNP and their counterparts can only be imagined.
Russell was as opinionated on matters of art and culture as he was on subjects like politics and philosophy.
The main things which seem to me important on their own account, and not merely as a means to other things, are knowledge, art, instinctive happiness, and relations of friendship or affection.
Knowledge, (along with a language to learn it from), and art, (the expression of feeling, knowledge or self), can contribute greatly towards happiness, friendship and affection. Together they make a potent formula and it was a formula that was often a source of fascination for Russell.
Of course, language is irrevocably linked to culture, and concern over the decline in the Welsh language is an ever present issue for the Welsh people. Often clarity in the Welsh language debate is lost and Russell has advice for those who lose their mooring, adrift on the sea of debate, “The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution.”
The language of our homeland is precious. It is part of an ancient rhythm set within the pulse; it is the means by which humanity emerged victorious from its own dark age. Newborn babies can recognise their mother’s accents, and conquering regimes ban native languages. Fighting for the Welsh language is a battle worth waging, but it will not be won by enforcing exclusions or penalties on non-speakers; that is not the way of progress. Languages are preserved because they are treasured and used, not policed.
The first step in finding a solution to the Welsh language problem must be to cut through the bitter arguments that so often become about semantics rather than achievable ways to work together with a common goal. There can be a tendency to overcomplicate and over-intellectualise issues that are of such a nature. They will always provide ample fodder for more argument and debate instead of magically presenting their own solutions to us. This often begs the question of those involved. Is it an argument that is wanted – or a solution? The truth is “The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation.” Cooperation is badly needed for the preservation of the Welsh language. Identity, freedom, and inclusiveness are the hallmarks of an accomplished people.
Bertrand Russell was indefatigable. Right up to his death, aged 97 in 1970, he was fighting battles. He fought for nuclear disarmament, against aggression in the Middle-East, and for humanitarian reform amongst other things. And he was, every inch of him, Welsh. He would be proud of his country in 2010, and Wales should be proud of him.
Bertrand Russell deserves the last word, and what could be more appropriate than this exhortation to always think and challenge the dominant ideology of the world around you.
I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn’t wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine.
Tags: Bertrand Russell, devolution, philosophy, religion
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
63 Comments
An excellent article Erin Norman! An illuminating portrait of a man whom we could use today to help us find solutions to the challenges facing Wales today.
What a wonderful piece – Russell needs to be reclaimed as a Welsh hero.
Erin is right to describe how difficult it is to categorise him. My view is that Russell was the ultimate sceptic. Anyone who spent some of their most productive years working on a book called “The principles of Mathematics” where he struggled with the fundamentals of arithmetic (that’s 1 + 1 = 2 to you and me) clearly had a problem accepting anything that was assumed to be obvious.
Were he alive today, very few of the modern day issues of big politics would have been left unexamined.
it would be fascinating to hear him, for instance, on environmental questions, specifically GM crops.
As far as the Welsh language is concerned, I guess that he is likely to have caused Erin a lot of frustration, demanding proof of its value.
Perhaps the greatest gift that Russell can give us to to grasp that concept of skepticism and challenge.
“Fighting for the Welsh language is a battle worth waging, but it will not be won by enforcing exclusions or penalties on non-speakers; that is not the way of progress. ”
This point is so obvious it hardly seems worth stating, but in stating it you imply that these exclusions and penalties exist and are enforced. Perhaps you could point out where they are and who enforces them?
Also, you seem to imply that they exist solely on the part of those who wish to maintain the language and don’t even passingly mention the noisy and aggressive segment who want it destroyed, who mock is speakers and expend what is often racist abuse against Welsh-language culture. Who call it ‘backward’,'primitive’, ‘ugly’ etc. , or who move to Welsh-speaking places and then show no evidence of respecting or even tolerating the culture of the people they’ve moved among. But they seem to me to be more visible and louder than these so-called ‘exclusionists’ you mention. Again, I recommend Betsan Powys’s BBC blog or the Western Mail website.
I don’t see anything is gained by suggesting, as you do, that faults lie all on one side of the fence. I’ll take your word that some in the Welsh speaking community want to enforce ‘penalties’ and ‘exclusions’ on the rest of us, though I haven’t met any myself (and I live in a very inclusive Welsh-speaking town). I’ll wait and hope for them to turn up at my door, but meanwhile but I’d expect you to look at the other kind of extremist too, to assess what they say and how they operate. It’s what Russell would have done.
What’s the point in writing articles like this, which raise big issues in such a cursory manner, then offer only clichés? If you’re going to enter this area, then at least look at both sides.
I’m sorry – I wanted to enjoy this article, because Russell is an interesting man, but it signally fails to say anything useful about the so-called ‘language issue’. Though I notice you prefer the phrase ‘the Welsh language problem’. Maybe that says something in itself?
I’m now having a Waleshome comment moratorium. It’s getting addictive.
Patrick: This article is not supposed to be an in-depth analysis of the debate surrounding the Welsh language. It is instead an extremely ambitious attempt to sum up the thinking of one of the 20th Century’s greatest thinkers and apply it to Wales. Not an easy thing to do (although I think Erin has managed it)
For in depth analysis of the Welsh Language Question (as you have such hostility to the word ‘problem’) please see Barry Taylor’s piece ‘The Welsh Language is under more threat than ever‘ – that should satisfy you.
It is also, as far as I’m aware, not a cliché to suggest that sometimes in the debate on the Welsh Language, and indeed any other tricky subject, it is important to restate the aim of said debate. Which is the point Bertrand Russell was making, and the one which Erin is relaying.
I, for one, found the article illuminating, interesting and accessible. Thanks Erin!
David Llewellyn and David Jones, thank you very much. It was a joy to write because I love Russell so much. In fact the problem was in holding back so as not to crash any servers.
Patrick, I am sorry that I did not come across properly with regards to the language issue. What you have taken from the piece was not my intent. I think from reading your comment there may be a bit of defensiveness coming out that is being directed at me. For example, I never used the word ‘exclusionists’ that you said I mentioned, in quotes.
Bore dda, the only Russell quote I recall is about marriage, he said it was a safeguard against the hostility of the herd. His contest with Wittgenstein to see who could pee the highest has gone down in history.
Finally, the biography: Catherine B also made the cut for Top Ten on Indy Minds and is a non-staffer.
“The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation.” Betrand Russell.
I think Russell would be an internationalist and a co-operator in 21st century Britain.
“Autonomy for internal affairs should be given, not only to areas, but to all groups, such as industries or Churches, which have important common interests not shared by the rest of the community.”
In the political context of Wales in 2010, this suggests Russell would be a great champion for empowering people within their communities, enabling them to direct and shape their own lives, taking responsibility for their outcomes, and aspiring to greater achievement personally as well as to a deep sense of civic duty.
He would still want the state, a partnership between Westminster and Cardiff, to be a facilitator and enabler, but would see the greatest advance for the people by letting them shape their own immediate local environment. Just as nature abhorrs a vacuum, so he would, as an internationalist, seek the building of bridges, in contrast to all forms of nationalism, which seeks to divide by accentuating difference.
To David Phillips: I agree with you. Russell’s fascination lies in his true and utter brilliance, and his complexity. What I have always felt to be true is how often people expect others to be simply one thing or another. Russell continually defies this (as do we all). In reality we are all many things, often contradictory. One of my favourite quotes from Russell is this:
“One should respect public opinion insofar as is necessary to avoid starvation and keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond that is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny.” This coming from a man who did spend time in prison in 1918.
However what truly impresses me about Russell is his compassion for humanity. He recognised that cooperation and building bridges was the way forward. To him, local decisions needed to be made locally by people who were present, accountable, and fully aware of the situations at hand. Nevertheless he knew we were all made of the same stuff, and we all had to work together on a larger scale.
What an excellent article. As his entry in “100 Welsh Heroes” (Culturenet Cymru, 2004) admits “his Welsh credentials are not well known”.
My favourite Russell line: “For a good life, one should be inspired by love and guided by reason”. Beautiful.
“Welsh Language Problem”? – Russell would have been the first to emphasise the importance of the use of words. Tell us it’s a “problem” it becomes one. How about a “Bilingual opportunity for the nation”?
Actually Dewi he would have been more concerned with the solving of the problem than the words we use to describe it. As he points out – debates like these become bogged down in semantics and a lack of cooperation between those involved. Which incidentally is happening here!
Besides which – there is a Welsh Language problem (in that it isn’t widely enough used – and is under threat – I think it’s a problem anyway).
An interesting piece about a man who is not widely known for his Welsh connections. I certainly only thought of him as an anti-nuclear intellectual prior to this piece so thanks for the wider context.
Like Patrick McGuinness, I had a problem with the three paragraphs relating to the language insofar as they had no link with the rest of the article. Russell is not quoted as saying anything about the language so I can only assume this is Erin’s take on the matter.
I don’t think Russell was Welsh at all. He was an Englishman who happen to live sometimes in Wales. He was not in any sense Celtic. He was a descendent of the occupiers. He was Welsh in the same sense that white South Africans are African.
Many white Africans would argue passionately that they are African.
“Bertrand Russell was born at Cleddon Hall in Trellech in 1872 and died at his home, Plas Penrhyn in Penrhyndeudraeth, in 1970. ”
That’s enough credentials for him to consider himself or for others to consider him so.
Thomas, you write: ” He was not in any sense Celtic. He was a descendent of the occupiers.”
Quite possibly the two nastiest and most offensive sentences we’ve ever published on WalesHome. You’re lucky we let them through.
Now let’s park this nasty strand and get back to discussing Bertrand Russell.
I agree with Adam above. The nationality of Russell’s parents is as arguable as that of much ‘nobility’ but their child was born in their Welsh home on Welsh soil and was brought up in Wales. That makes him at least as Welsh as the children of any immigrant parents to this fine country.
That aside, what a great article! Especially notable as it says Erin is just beginning her career.
Looking forward to the next one and I hope it invites as much debate!
I think the claim that Russell was not Welsh hardly needs responding to. It reminds me of the BNP member who told me to go back to where I came from and take my (English born) 3 year old son with me. You’re in very dodgy territory there, and at any rate my family was in America only a few generations after centuries of being on these Isles. It is all much of a nonsense really isn’t it.
But to steer the conversation back to Russell, where it belongs, he said “Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity to those who are not regarded as members of the herd.” I think some of this can be seen today in the eagerness to draw battle lines.
His parents weren’t Welsh, indeed they were English aristocrats, but he was born in Wales, he lived in Wales and he died in Wales, so it’s up to the man himself to decide whether he was Welsh or not.
If he made no such claim in life then it’s not for us to make that decision for him now that he’s dead.
Russell would have been amused that “Mr Riggins” assigned him a label of nationality; of the topic, he wrote of language as being the medium to transfer ideas, much like a choice between paper or papyrus, pen or brush.
The philosopher might have wondered why the Welsh Assembly Government had not followed his advice of …… “stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution.”
Does the Welsh Assembly Government want a solution ?
I wonder if Russell dreamed in Welsh, would that have made him Welsh enough for Mr Riggins ?
It’s up to us to say whatever the Hell we like about Bertrand Russell. It’s what people do when they look back. What point are you making, Simon?
Agree with Daran. It isn’t particularly what is said but what is implied that is offensive: that there is an unspoken set of criteria that determines whether someone is Welsh or not, that someone can be rejected on the basis that they don’t tick the boxes. Who decides that? And what are the ramifications of such a course of action?
Jesus. What unoriginal thinking – unlike today’s piece.
“It’s up to us to say whatever the Hell we like about Bertrand Russell”
Have I said that the case is otherwise?
“What point are you making, Simon?”
I fail to see anything in my previous comment that requires further clarification. It agrees with Daran’s argument that Bertrand Russell has every right to consider himself to be Welsh, but disagrees with the argument that we have any right to make that decision for him in his absence. The question is then: did Bertrand Russell consider himself to be Welsh?
Certainly he is a figure in Welsh history, but for us to impose our nationhood on him would effectively be an attempt to rewrite history unless it is based on what Bertrand Russell himself had to say on the matter.
I’m glad that Erin’s excellent piece has stimulated a good response, and many of the observations have been incisive and intelligent.
What a shame, therefore, that we got diverted into a somewhat stereotypical discussion about the Welsh language, and whether the terms in which it was couched were entirely proper. It’s not as if WalesHome.org doesn’t give space to this issue – our most commented piece is on it, after all. I think that we should attempt to stay on-topic, which here is a discussion about whether we in Wales can learn anything from one of the 20th century’s greatest intellectuals.
Simon, let me clarify it for you then since you are struggling.
Erin’s piece says: “Russell truly loved Wales; whenever he refers to his home country in his autobiography it is with a sense of homecoming, peace and camaraderie.”
Read the piece before you comment. You’ll look less ridiculous. And people rewrite history all the time, that’s what historians do. And it’s not always for the worse.
Duncan, I indeed read the piece, and did so with great interest – otherwise I wouldn’t have gone to the trouble of commenting. I am somewhat disappointed that you should seek to imply that I had not done so. Even more so that you should suggest that I “look ridiculous” for expressing a point of view!
Enid’s piece says “And he was, every inch of him, Welsh.” All I have asked is whether the man himself would have agreed with such an assertion.
Play the ball, not the man.
Simon
You’ve had your say on this. It’s perfectly clear from Erin’s piece that Russell had a deep affinity with Wales that was most likely to extend to self-identification with the place. On the question “was he Welsh?” we therefore have one piece of evidence in the “yes” column. If you have anything that you believe belongs in the “no” column, let’s hear it.
If, on the other hand, all you wish to do is ask whether there is further evidence one way or the other, please be assured that your query is noted.
At the age of 84 Russell added a five paragraph prologue to his autobiography. This is particularly interesting because he is summing up what was most important to him at that time. His words flow beautifully and honestly; reading them you know that you are hearing his own raw truth.
He says “Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. These passions, like great winds, have blown me hither and thither, in a wayward course, over a deep ocean of anguish, reaching to the very verge of despair…” He gives several reasons for seeking love and knowledge, and says they sent him reaching up towards the heavens, but, “always pity brought me back to earth. Echoes of cries of pain reverberate in my heart. Children in famine, victims tortured by oppressors, helpless old people a hated burden to their sons, and the whole world of loneliness, poverty, and pain make a mockery of what human life should be. I long to alleviate the evil, but I cannot, and I too suffer. This has been my life. I have found it worth living, and would gladly live it again if the chance were offered me.”
This is what he wanted to pass on in his final years – he was academically brilliant, revolutionary in politics and religion, and quite marvellously sexual, but at the core of everything he did was a hard drive to understand and improve the human condition. I would say that is one starting point for anyone wishing to know what could be learnt from him.
I could produce a number of extracts from his autobiography where he mentions his life in Wales, but I think this is unnecessary. Never to my recollection did Russell say “I am Welsh” but I don’t think he would have anticipated the pedantic need for it, or cared. He talks about his home in small but constant moments, such as returning from a drive to find a kind, but embarrassed police officer who’d been sent to deliver summons of charging Russell and his wife with civil disobedience. He remembered this man so many years later with fondness. It was his home. “home to Wales”, “returning home”. I have read it and they are his words so I would consider that he would think this discussion most bizarre.
He was Welsh and he considered himself so, he was born, lived (part of his life), retired and died in Wales. Why would his nationality be questioned any more than any other person of Wales who also travelled extensively and often lived abroad?
What do you think Russell would have made of this website and it’s many discussions?
“If he made no such claim in life then it’s not for us to make that decision for him now that he’s dead.”
That is an assertion, not a point of view. It directly contradicts Erin’s properly researched piece. That is what is ridiculous.
Bertrand Russell: Born: 1872 (Wales) Died: 1970 (Wales) Caused Trouble: To Present (Everywhere).
“If, on the other hand, all you wish to do is ask whether there is further evidence one way or the other, please be assured that your query is noted.”
That is indeed the case. I’d prefer to hear what the man himself had to say on the subject.
I believe that Russell left Monmouthshire as a very small child and then lived in England for the rest of his life, before purchasing a retirement home in Penrhyndeudraeth when in his 80s. Whether he had an “emotional commitment” to Wales or not is irrevelant. He made no contribution to intellectual life in Wales whatsoever. He retired to a Welsh-speaking community, yet never learnt Welsh. According to this article, he enjoyed the “view”. He spells Porthmadog as ‘Portmadoc’.
If he had written books or articles in exile addressing Wales (one thinks of another Gwent intellectual, Raymond Williams, writing on Wales at Cambridge), there might be something to discuss. However, he did not, and there is not.
Of course, there’s a lot to learn from Russell about the Anglo-American philosophical tradition, British radicalism etc, etc, but it says nothing to us about Wales.
Simon B
Even accepting your thesis, do you say that Russell’s writings tell us nothing about Wales simply because he did not single Wales out? That seems to be an extraordinarily narrow way of interpreting philosophical thought. It’d be like suggesting that Hobbes tells us only about the state of the English polity in the mid 17th century, or that we may learn from Burke only the downsides of the French revolution.
Erin has demonstrated how his thinking might be applied to Wales. Resenting him because he spent much of his life outside of Wales seems an ill-tempered and insular response.
I think this is being read with a very personal and modern agenda, from each individual, which to some extent is fair enough, but some of this debate over Russell’s nationality is missing the point by a long mile. For one thing, he was born in 1872. Queen Victoria was still alive and cantankerous. He didn’t know that in 2010 it would need to be spelled out in very politically correct and clear terms exactly where he stood. Some points that are being laboured over now, simply were not considered then.
Either way, he was Welsh, like it or not, and he was not just born and died in Wales. If you simply read a fact sheet on him it may appear so but in reality it was not the case. Please see the point in my piece referencing Russell saying he found it easier to speak to Welsh miners about pacifism etc than to people in London. If he had for all intents and purposes vanished from Wales between birth and retirement/death then there would not be the countless examples of comments such as that. If you want to get DNA profiling to judge exactly how Welsh everyone who holds citizenship is be prepared for some uncomfortable disclosures.
If Russell said (for example, this is not a quote) “people are capable of great things” does it not apply to the Welsh because he did not say “Welsh people are capable of great things”? Why would you wish for him to be so narrow when his magnificence lies in his ability to look at the entire universe in one comprehensive clear view? It is a legacy for the Welsh to be proud of and embrace, not reject. He was Welsh, but he did not think only of Wales. His genius has spawned thought that will be ticking along for as long as history carries it.
Hear Hear Adam Higgitt and of course the author of this feature herself.
It surely is an absurd angle that some have chosen to take with this piece.
Technically Russell was Welsh, he’s a flipping excellent bloke, so if I were you I’d claim him.
You don’t have to.
You can decide he’s English, Ethiopian, Chechen or even perhaps Martian. It’s completely irrelevant.
Personally, I find that someone as well travelled and worldly-wise as Russell could have chosen to settle his days in any odd, bright and wonderful corner of this globe, but he didn’t. He came back to the place he loved best, the place of his birth and childhood, the place where his family home was.
He came back to Wales.
Which incidentally, is also wonderful.
“That is an assertion, not a point of view. It directly contradicts Erin’s properly researched piece. That is what is ridiculous.”
It is both a point of view and an assertion. I fail to see how it is “ridiculous” whether it contradicts Erin’s piece or not – although I hardly see how asking for further information to qualify the assertion that Russell was Welsh amounts to a contradiction.
“It was his home. “home to Wales”, “returning home”. I have read it and they are his words so I would consider that he would think this discussion most bizarre.”
“Home to Wales” is a clear and unequivocal statement (*returning home” isn’t quite). This is the kind of thing I was driving at by asking to hear what the man himself had to say on the matter (Oh, and I’m sure Russell would have been quite capable to grasping this discussion! The question of the nationality of revered famous dead people is hardly unique to this corner of the world: just look up Adam Mieckiewicz)
Simon
Our Comment Policy makes it clear that repetitive comment posting is not allowed. You have posed your query and made your point more than once now. If you fail again to develop either in any further comments, they won’t be published here.
Adam
In answer to Adam’s point, I just don’t think that Bertrand Russell contributed to Welsh discourse in any meaningful fashion, and trying to somehow claim him as a Welsh philosopher is a bit silly. It’s like saying that Michael Heseltine is an important Welsh politician. I understand that Heseltine was born in Wales, is Welsh, has fond memories about Swansea etc., etc, but despite all this Heseltine has not made much contribution of any significance to Welsh political life as Welsh political life. Waleshome wouldn’t run articles on great Welsh politicians, and then come up with Michael Heseltine, Geoffrey Howe and John Prescott as significant achievers in a Welsh context, although by UK recognition and achievement they are obviously important.
The same are my feelings for our intellectual life. There are people who have contributions from a Welsh point of view to the world of ideas. Some of them have had to leave Wales to do this – Raymond Williams, for example; Gwyn Alf too, during his period teaching in England; Saunders Lewis in fact did not live in Wales until his late 20s. My point is simply that Bertrand Russell is not one of these figures. He is a very important figure in Anglophone philosophy, but he simply has nothing to say about Wales. If the argument is that he is interesting for Wales because he wrote about the universal and Wales is part of the universal, fine, but why then bring up his Welshness in the first place?
Contrary to what has been suggested on more than one occasion in this thread, Russell did continue to be involved (to a greater or lesser degree) with Wales throughout his life.
He was, for instance, Head of the CND in Wales and an active campaigner and organiser. In addition he was a prominent member of the Welsh branch of the Committee of The 100. He was also, of course, a NCF (No-Conscription Fellowship) member, and it was in this capacity that he engaged the working people of South Wales during a notable lecture tour in 1916.
In his retirement years he was a well respected and liked member of the community in which he lived and subsequently died.
The fact that he was born in Wales and that he campaigned throughout his life (admittedly sporadically) in Wales, viewed along with his later retirement to Wales doesn’t suggest to me a man who abandoned his country at all; or a man that didn’t have a sense of place. Rather it suggests a man who was drawn back to Wales at times of difficulty or impasse. And that has resonance for the likes of us who don’t reside in Wales – but still consider themselves Welsh. That draw, in essence, is the simple power of home.
I think it’s interesting that some people in this thread are so vociferous in their claims that Russell isn’t Welsh. Especially when the wider public, if asked, (as they were in 2004 by Culturenet Cymru) generally include him in the lists of Greatest Welsh People. Russell wasn’t a Welsh philosopher in the sense that his philosophy was about Wales – but it wasn’t about England or anywhere else particular either – philosophy is rarely about a fixed location (and when it is it speaks more generally of wider truths).
The truth is that Bertrand Russell’s philosophy shook the world, challenged the status quo and enlightened people on a level that simply doesn’t allow us to compare his work with (albeit notable) chaps like Raymond Williams et al. It is also noticeable that the people that Simon refers too don’t seem to be philosophers, rather they are historians or cultural critics – ie people whose work is more locatable.
Russell’s legacy is on a scale that is rare in modern thought, and for that reason Welsh people should be proud that he chose to campaign, live, and die in Wales. And that he held it, and its people, in such high regard. We should be pleased to call him one of our own. So, he didn’t say anything specifically about Wales, although (as Erin pointed out) he did write about devolved government. His contribution to our politics and philosophy was as significant here as it was elsewhere.
We should be proud of the fact he was from Wales – can you imagine how the English would react if someone tried to claim that, say, Darwin, wasn’t English – because he didn’t say anything specific about England.
Some individuals contributions to the intellectual life of the world transcend the nation of their birth. That, however, doesn’t mean that they are not from that place. And crucially, it doesn’t mean that fellow countrymen and women shouldn’t be proud of them.
Simon B
I suspect that what you are driving at is that Russell was not the sort of Welsh intellectual of whom you approve, namely one who stressed the particularity of Wales above all else. Important Welsh people down the years has suffered this slight, including many politicians who chose to pursue their careers and objectives through a British context. Lloyd George’s sudden disengagement from the cause of Welsh Home rule after the collapse of Cymru Fydd is often depicted as him somehow falling under some Anglo-Saxon spell. Many other examples exist.
As Erin says, I suspect BR came from a tradition that had no reason to suppose it would have to parade its Welsh credentials in order to avoid sotto voce accusations of treachery a century later. Turns out, he continues to confound and defy easy categorisation. Good for him.
So let me get this right, Simon D. You’ve read through the BR piece, which clearly advertises itself as laying Welsh claim to the man, engaged in considerable argument and backpeddling with me, only to decide you’d rather seek out his views on the subject.
Don’t let me stop you.
Duncan
There has been no “backpeddling”. Read my comments rather than invent them for yourself!
I’ve said the same thing in every one of them. I didn’t “only decide to” say anything, Duncan. I rtepeatL I have said the same thing and expressed the same view from the first comment on.
That, Duncan, is cold “consistency”.
A sad morning, I realised that I am probably not Welsh enough to vote on Welsh matters, I had a grandfather who travelled from Devon to work in the Rhondda, and another grandfather whose family originated in the forest of Dean, moving to Glamorgan during the 17th century, and to cap it all I travelled around the world for 35 years.
… and I do not spell Caerphilly as Caerffili.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Autobiography-Bertrand-Russell-Vols/dp/B000O326HI/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263812866&sr=8-3
There is a single volume, but you appear to have the time for the more comprehensive three-volume account. Let me know if you discover anything Welsh in there, Simon.
“Let me know if you discover anything Welsh in there, Simon.”
How kind of you. Really, you shouldn’t have. I look forward to receiving this gift from you in the post.
However, as I pointed out in one of my previous comments:
“Home to Wales” is a clear and unequivocal statement
” Our Comment Policy makes it clear that repetitive comment posting is not allowed. You have posed your query and made your point more than once now. If you fail again to develop either in any further comments, they won’t be published here.”
Sorry Adam, I missed this. However, I am gratified that you at least have noticed that I have being saying the same thing all along!
I’m not quite sure why Simon Dyda’s comments on Russell’s Welshness or otherwise are considered vexatious. Isn’t there a danger of Tenuous Welsh Link-ism (copyright Carolyn Hitt) by claiming Russell as Welsh instead of regarding him as a British aristocrat with links to Wales. After all he belonged to a class which tended to think of itself as British primarily.
Interesting how this item has given rise to quite an intense philosophical discussion on who & what can be claimed as ‘Welsh’. I’m sure Bertrand Russell himself would have approved.
Speaking for myself I have no problem in having an essay on him placed in a ‘Welsh’ context, and I liked what Rob Williams had to say on the matter.
One of the reasons I welcomed the advent of the Assembly was that it would help do away with this tiresome business of defining who is ‘Welsh’. Anybody who now lives in Wales is entitled to vote in the elections for the Assembly, thereby being a ‘Welsh’ citizen. This has moved us all on from the energy sapping debates of the past regarding ethnic identity, cultural identity, Welsh speaker & Anglo-Welsh etc..
Therefore in this new political & social context, let’s claim Bertrand Russell, a man born & lived here, as Welsh – wouldn’t it be a sign of our maturity, thanks to devolution, that we can rejoice in someone with Welsh roots who wasn’t overtly involved in Welsh affairs but clearly made a major contribution to how many perceive the world & its problems & possible solutions?
“If I were a medical man, I should prescribe a holiday to any patient who considered his work important.”
Erin,
Another fascinating individual you and other readers may take a liking to is Dr D. J. (David James) Davies. Dr Davies is “my” Bertrand Russell, so to speak. He was a economist, industrialist, prize winning essayist, author, political activist, pilot, boxer, and an internationalist. I wrote a short bio on Dr. Davies on wikipedia.
I am finding Dr Davies study of the Tennessee Valley Authority and its use as a template for economic development for Wales absolutely fascinating.
“I find that English people, when they try to please American opinion, are very apt to make mistakes.”
Bertrand Russell said this in a letter to Gilbert Murray, quoted in his autobiography. The middle volume of it is available here and the quotes I’ll make will be taken from it, should anyone want to see them in context.
-
Firstly I want to thank Erin for a stimulating and thought provoking essay. I was following it and the debate “live” but decided to hold back until I’d done a little fact checking for myself. I trust it’s not too late to comment now.
But to transpose BR’s comment, I think it might be equally true to say that American people, when they try to please Welsh opinion, might make one or two mistakes. Not necessarily mistakes of fact, but mistakes of emphasis, because we each have certain blind spots … things that seem so obvious to us that we can’t quite understand how others could see it differently.
I lived a few years in America, and quite a few more years flying back and forth. One thing that struck me was that Americans tend to think that one’s place of birth is much more defining to them than it would be to others. So there is almost something axiomatic in saying that because someone was born in Wales, they must be Welsh. I feel that there is a large element of that in her thinking, such that when his Welshness was questioned, it brought out very strong reactions. At one end of the spectrum this was saying, in effect, “He was born and died in Wales, what else could he be?” At the other end were outright denials that he was Welsh at all.
Erin’s intention, I think its fair to say, was to “please Welsh opinion” by showing us how an undoubtedly great thinker is linked to Wales. She wanted us to be more aware of him and proud of him … and of course we should be proud of him, no matter how strong or tenuous his links with Wales might have been. By any measure he can be called a great man.
-
But there are several things Erin said in the essay that seemed to me to be vastly over-egging the pudding of BR’s Welshness:
First, the title of the essay says that his philosophy was “made in Wales”. But as he left Wales at a very young age, there seems to me very little to suggest that Wales had any sort of influence on how his thoughts developed … and they were certainly fully developed by the time he took to buying a house (we would probably call it a holiday home) in Wales.
Second, when Erin says, “Russell truly loved Wales; whenever he refers to his home country in his autobiography it is with a sense of homecoming, peace and camaraderie” she makes it appear that he regarded Wales as his home country. This is misleading, although I’m sure it is in no sense deliberate. It’s fair to say that BR had a home in Wales which he both loved and enjoyed retreating to. The part that is misleading is to say that he thought of it as “his home country” … to my mind that is a sort of logical “short circuit” brought about by connecting the “fact” that BR was Welsh because he was born and died in Wales, and the “fact” that Wales is a country.
Third, the three paragraphs on the Welsh language seem to be more speculation than anything else (because it doesn’t seem that BR ever talked about Welsh, though he wrote a lot, and I can’t claim to have read everything). However in the context of the essay, it made it appear that BR would have been more concerned about Welsh, and therefore his identity as Welsh, than would be warranted.
Fourth, Erin said, “And he was, every inch of him, Welsh.” And in the comments said “He was Welsh and he considered himself so.”
-
Now, although speed reading is no substitute for scholarship, I have to say that the evidence I can find most certainly does not point to BR regarding himself as Welsh. Here are a few illustrative quotes:
“Various things I have undertaken to do will keep me here till the end of October; then (D.V.) I shall return to England, Peter & Conrad too, if the danger from submarines is not too great. We can’t bear being away from home any longer. In England I shall have to find some means of earning a livelihood.”
“I think you are entirely right in what you say about the Labour Party. I do not like them, but an Englishman has to have a Party just as he has to have trousers, and of the three Parties I find them the least painful.”
“I find that I cannot maintain the pacifist position in this war. I do not feel sufficiently sure of the opposite to say anything publicly by way of recantation, though it may come to that. In any case, here in America an Englishman can only hold his tongue, as anything he may say is labelled propaganda.”
“Opinion here [the US] varies with the longitude. In the East, people are passionately pro-English; we are treated with extra kindness in shops as soon as people notice our accent. In California they are anti-Japanese but not pro-English; in the Middle West they were rather anti-English. But everywhere opinion is very rapidly coming over to the conviction that we must not be defeated.”
“In the midst of this, I was myself tortured by patriotism. The successes of the Germans before the Battle of the Marne were horrible to me. I desired the defeat of Germany as ardently as any retired colonel. Love of England is very nearly the strongest emotion I possess, and in appearing to set it aside at such a moment, I was making a very difficult renunciation.”
“I was glad to get your letter. I had begun to feel anxious. I am glad Lawrence was so wonderful. I have no doubt he is right to go, but I couldn’t desert England. I simply cannot bear to think that England is entering on its autumn of life, it is too much anguish. I will not believe it, and I will believe there is health and vigour in the nation somewhere. It is all hell now, and shame but I believe the very shame will in the end wake a new spirit. The more England goes down and down, the more profoundly I want to help, and the more I feel tied to England for good or ill. I cannot write of other things, they seem so small in comparison.”
“As a patriot I am depressed by the downfall of England, as yet only partial, but likely to be far more complete before long. The history of England for the last four hundred years is in my blood.”
I think these quotes prove fairly conclusively that Bertrand Russell regarded his home country as England, and himself as English. He certainly didn’t say these things about Wales or speak of himself as being Welsh.
-
But in saying this I am aware (but need to say it so that others reading this will also be aware of it) that what BR meant by “England” might well be something rather different from the way we use the word “England” today. In short, it is possible that he was using the word in the same way as we today would use the word “British”.
He certainly used England in some instances to talk about things that concerned the UK as a whole. He talks about English diplomacy and foreign relations and England being at war. So his patriotism for “England” might simply be directed towards what we would now call “Britain”.
But to counter that there are instances where he does use the word “Britain” in the same way as we would today.
“The Labour Party is the only one whose foreign policy is sane and reasonable, the only one which is likely to save Britain from even worse disasters than those already suffered.”
“I went to Washington to argue that I must be allowed to perform my duties in the House of Lords, and tried to persuade the authorities that my desire to do so was very ardent. At last I discovered an argument which convinced the British Embassy.”
However the following quotes seem to indicate that he used “England” and “Britain” interchangeably and without being aware of any difference … in a way that most of the world, including many people in England, still do:
“Friends of China in England urged England in vain to do likewise. At last it was decided that, instead of a punitive payment, the Chinese should make some payment which should be profitable to both China and Britain.”
“I viewed America in those days with the conceited superiority of the insular Briton. Nevertheless, contact with academic Americans, especially mathematicians, led me to realize the superiority of Germany to England in almost all academic matters.”
-
Yet as a “counter to that counter”, it appears from this quote that RB was quite capable of distinguishing between England and Scotland:
“We travelled up in the train with Ramsay MacDonald, who spent the time telling long
stories of pawky Scotch humour so dull that it was almost impossible to be aware when the point had been reached. It was decided at Leeds to attempt to form organizations in the various districts of England and Scotland with a view to promoting workers’ and soldiers’ councils on the Russian model.”
And he can also differentiate between England and Ireland (and it is worth noting that for the first half of his life Ireland was just as much a part of the UK as Scotland was and still is). So I would suggest that the best way of understand the way BR thought is to say that he did not regard England and Wales as two different countries, but instead regarded Wales as a part of England. Though this will seem a very alien (and offensive) concept to us now, this was in fact the “official” view of Wales (explaining for example why Wales has never been on the flag or the Royal Standard, whereas England, Scotland and Ireland are).
So perhaps when he talked about going home to Wales, he was simply thinking in the same way as someone else would talk about going home to Devon or Cambridgeshire … i.e. as the part of England from which they came. And that, of course, would not diminish any love he had for Wales any more than it would diminish a Yorkshireman’s love for Yorkshire. He definitely chose to live out his last days here, and that choice might even indicate an attachment to Wales rather than just a fondness for the quality of the scenery. It’s just that he wouldn’t have thought of Wales as a country.
And can we really blame him for that? BR was right at the heart of what we would call the “Establishment” so why would he be expected to see things differently? After all, in a political sense Wales has only recently begun to be officially recognized as a country again.