CHAPTER
2
THE
"INSANITY" OF AMERICAN FOURIERISM
In October 1843, Albert Brisbane founded a new
Fourierist journal, The Phalanx. His previous writings on Fourierism, which included
several magazine articles, a widely-reprinted newspaper column in Horace
Greeley's New York Tribune, and a
pamphlet that sold 10,000 copies, had already done much to popularize Fourier's
social theories (Guarneri 33). Now that
he had given many Americans a cursory acquaintance with Fourierism, Brisbane
had a more ambitious goal for The Phalanx,
expressed in the journal's statement of editorial principles:
The Phalanx . . . will enter into an exposition of the
higher and more scientific parts of Fourier's discoveries, which have not been
hitherto been made known in this country, or published to any extent in
English.
It
will contain copious translations from Fourier's works, the whole of which it
is designed in time to give . . . (Ph
1.1 (6 Oct. 1843): 1)
In the inaugural issue, the editors (Brisbane and
Osborne Macdaniel) chose a logical beginning for this project: a serialized
translation of Fourier's first major work, Théorie
des quatre mouvements et des destinées générales (1808).[1] In a chapter translated in The Phalanx's second number,
"Prejudices of the Civilized World," Fourier had attempted to preempt
his critics by identifying major obstacles to the theory's acceptance. One such obstacle was the "[s]cientific
pride" of his competitors, the false philosophers. Fourier argued that sophists would attack him
because, overcome by the theory's brilliance, they would be filled with
professional jealousy:
A
success of the kind is an affront for the existing generation; the benefits which
it will secure are forgotten in thinking of the reproach which is cast upon the
century which made it. This is a reason
why the author of a brilliant discovery is often ridiculed and persecuted
before his discovery is examined and judged.
A
man like Newton is not exposed to this kind of jealousy, because his
calculations are so transcendent that the scientific in general make no
pretension to them; but a man like Christopher Columbus is attacked, vilified,
because his idea of searching for a new continent was so simple that any one
could have thought of it as well as he.
As a result the discoverer is thwarted in his purposes and every effort
is made to hinder a realization of his ideas.[2]
Fourier's "brilliant
discovery" would not merely identify the problems underlying the present
organization of society, for its explicative power was not limited to the
"Practical Part of Fourier's Social Science" that Brisbane had
already set forth in his 1842 pamphlet.
Fourier appended a lengthy note to this chapter that suggested some
unexpected applications of the theory.
Here is The Phalanx's
reasonably accurate translation, which I quote at length, not for its manifest
content, but for what it reveals about its author:
If
I was dealing with an impartial age, which sought earnestly to penetrate the
mysteries of Nature, it would be easy to prove that Newton and his followers
have explained but a minor part of the laws of that branch of Movement, which
they have treated, the Sidereal.
As
a proof, interrogate astronomers upon the distributive system of the planets,
and they will remain silent; their most learned men, Laplace for instance,
cannot give the shadow of a solution to the following problems:
What
are the laws of sidereal association, the ranks and positions assigned to
various planets?
Why
is Mercury the nearest to the sun?
Why
is Herschel the most distant? being less than Jupiter and Saturn, should it not
be nearer to the sun?
What
is the cause of different degrees of eccentricity in the orbits of the planets?
What
are the laws of astral affinity, or the grouping of satellites with planets?
Why
do certain globes conjugate as moons upon a cardinal or pivotal planet, as the
satellites of Jupiter, Saturn, and Herschel?
Why
has Herschel, sixteen times smaller than Jupiter, six or eight satellites or
moons, while Jupiter has only four?
Would it not seem that Jupiter should carry the greatest number of
moons? Being sixteen times larger than Herschel, might it not carry the greatest
number of satellites? The fact of the
enormous Jupiter carrying fewer moons than Herschel, is strangely out of
proportion with the received theorem of "Gravitation in direct proportion
to the mass, etc."
[. . . .]
Why
has Saturn luminous belts, besides the seven moons, while Jupiter has no
luminous belts, though receiving less light from four moons than Saturn from
his seven?
Why
has Earth a moon, and Venus not?
Why
has not our moon an atmosphere like Venus and the Earth?
What
are the differences of function in the solar system, between satellites, and
planets carrying them as moons, and those which do not carry moons, such as
Venus, Mars, Mercury, and Vesta?
What
are the changes which have already occurred or will occur, in the relative
positions of the planets in our solar system?
What
is the nature of the unknown planets?
Where are they placed? How are we
to discover them? What are their
relative dimensions and their functions in the system?
To
all these questions our men of science have no answers: they have no knowledge
of the laws of distributive harmony.
They are ignorant of the major parts of the law of sidereal movement,
which they think they have explained.
And
I, who am able to answer all these questions fully, since my later discoveries
made in the year 1814, have I not completed the task commenced by
But
this complete knowledge of the laws of sidereal movement, which I
possess, only constitutes one of the cardinal branches of universal
movement. The others still remain to be
explained, particularly the pivotal or passional and social movement, on which
depends the unitary organization of the human race and its final destiny on
earth, which can only be discovered by studying the whole mechanism of universal
unity, the causes and effects of all its branches, of which
Newton and his followers have only discovered a single fragment, and that the
least important to the happiness of man.
(Ph 28)
In the third number of The Phalanx (5 Dec. 1843), the translation of Quatre mouvements was abruptly discontinued; in its place appeared
excerpts from Fourier's Treatise on
Domestic and Agricultural Association (Traité
de l'association domestique-agricole), with the following explanation:
[Because] the
subsequent parts [of Theory of the Four
Movements are] of a very profound and scientific character, we defer the
publication of them to a future time when our readers will be more numerous and
better prepared to understand them. (Ph 35)
What should we make of the decision offered by
Brisbane and Macdaniel? Their suggestion
that the serialization of Quatre
mouvements was abandoned because of its overly "scientific
character," or even because of its obscurity and bizarreness, fails to
convince, if only because the Traité,
despite Fourier's stated intentions, is equally bizarre and even more obscure
(Beecher 116, 358-359). Indeed, The Phalanx's initial selection from the
Traité was a jargon-laden exposition
of the theory of series, virtually incomprehensible to the uninitiated. And even if Brisbane and Macdaniel had
decided that Quatre mouvements was
too difficult for most readers, were there not already a sufficient number of
American students of Fourierism to justify an "exposition of the higher
and more scientific parts of Fourier's discoveries"? For all its perceived defects, Quatre mouvements had the virtue of
being much shorter than the four-volume Traité.
There was a more compelling reason to abandon the
translation: of all Fourier's works, Quatre
mouvements was the one "written under the least constraint."[3] As Henri Desroche has argued, the
"écriture sauvage" of Fourierism's early years was gradually
supplanted by an "écriture censurée."
This domestication of Fourier's wild thought took place on several
levels: some texts were completely suppressed, notably Le Nouveau Monde amoreux, first published in 1967. In others, Fourier practiced self-censorship,
often confessing to the reader that he was forced to exercize circumspection on
a particular doctrinal point. Posthumous
editions were subjected to further censorship and reinterpretation by French
disciples.[4] The essential point is that most French
Fourierist writings were already heavily censored. Since Quatre
mouvements was perhaps the least "repressed" of these texts, it
created special problems for the American Fourierists.
Brisbane and Macdaniel may well have judged that
passages like those quoted above were not likely to win over many converts to
the American movement. They may have
feared that the master appeared paranoid in his preemptive strike upon future
critics, egomaniacal in his comparison of his discovery to those of Columbus
and Newton, and megalomaniacal in his claim to have discovered a
nineteenth-century version of a unified field theory that could be used not
only to eliminate all social ills, but also to explain the mysteries of the
solar system in mind-numbing detail.
Of course, if Fourier's American students found his
answers to the "sidereal" questions satisfactory, any objections to
his self-glorifying rhetoric would be rendered moot. If the answers were unsatisfactory, however,
they might have dismissed the theory as the work of an eccentric or even a
madman. They would not have been alone.[5] To be fair, most of Fourier's questions are
quite rational—indeed, we now know that Jupiter has more than four moons, that
Saturn is not the only planet with rings, and that there were indeed planets
undiscovered in Fourier's era. On the
other hand, Fourier's answers to these questions relied upon an irrational yet
fantastically rationalistic theory of analogies. (For example, in the Théorie de l'Unité universelle, Fourier ventured to explain the
relationship between the planets, the passions, and the fruits found in
temperate zones: pears were created by Saturn, Cardinal of ambition, and its
seven moons; red fruits by the Earth, planet of friendship, and its five [!]
moons; apricots and plums by Herschel, planet of love, and its eight moons.)[6] Perhaps Brisbane and Macdaniel arrived at an
intermediate position, deciding that Fourier was a brilliant social theorist
whose writings on all other matters were unreliable. One can imagine them paging through Quatre mouvements nervously, realizing
that in a few issues, they would have to translate Fourier's account of the
sexual relations between heavenly bodies.[7] It seems reasonable to postulate that The Phalanx's editors ultimately decided
that for the good of the movement, they would not present unabridged
translations of Fourier to their American audience. Instead, they would keep the most
controversial portions of the theory, as well as their own doubts, to
themselves.
The hypothesis just offered is consistent with the
position championed by Bestor and Guarneri, who note that Brisbane and others
promulgated an adulterated version of Fourier in
Some American Fourierists went beyond
As to Fourier's
theories of Marriage, of Cosmogony, and the Immortality of the Soul, we do not
accept them and this is the position which the
As Guarneri has argued, the
American Associationists learned from the example of the French Fourierists,
who solved similar problems by writing their own theoretical treatises that
presented carefully selected portions of Fourier.
While I largely agree with the standard claim that the
American influence of Fourier's writings was highly mediated, an important
qualification is necessary: the fact that American Fourierists suppressed
portions of Fourier's thought does not necessarily mean that they did so
because they believed Fourier was in error.
While it is true that
This description
of the people of Saturn . . . who live in bands of unity, worshipping God
"all as one," instead of living in war and conflict, does not excite
entire skepticism in our minds. Saturn
we believe to be from various indications, in a state of harmony, having passed
through the dark ages of ignorance and discord, which are attendant upon the
social infancy or the commencement of the career of every Race upon every planet,—and
in which we, as a Race, are still engaged,—and as a consequence some such
condition of things must exist there.
(Rev. of Lectures on
Clairmativeness 203)
Michael Fellman has argued that
Although
[Albert's] natural disposition led him to cherish his early hopes for rapid
social transformation, he was not long in reaching the conviction that the
experimental efforts of the reformatory world were ahead of time. His flexible mind was quick to perceive the
want of science in all the practical essays of the "Associationists,"
and when he retired from that field it was to devote the remainder of his life
to scientific research. (R. Brisbane 36)
By 1875, the wistful
I was influenced by a low practical ideal . .
. little associations. . . . The grand
idea was discredited. I should have
preached the 'Divine Code,' the doctrine of the passions as a revelation of the
human will; universal Association; the history of man as the Overseer of the
globe. (qtd., Fellman 17).
The soul of man
being a complete harmony, has within itself the type of the harmonies of the
universe, and can, with the aid of those proportional intellectual faculties,
which have been given it, elevate itself to comprehend their system. . . .
[T]here is a perfect correspondence between the harmonies of the passions and
those of the material world . . . .[14]
Brisbane even reaffirms one
of Fourier's most radical claims, that man's implementation of the Divine Code
will transform all the Universe into an Eden, because the destinies of
individuals, the human race, the planet, and the solar system are all
"closely connected" (SDM
244, qtd. in Fellman 13-14). According
to
One especially compelling piece of evidence for
This interest in Fourier's theory of cosmic unity was
not limited to
Gatti de Gamond's popular treatise made little attempt
to conceal several of Fourier's most bizarre tenets. In the preface, the author admitted that
Fourier's theories of cosmogony and the immortality of the soul had not been
"rigorously demonstrated"; furthermore, she pointedly repeated
Fourier's statement that his speculations could be separated from the
"exact science" of Association (viii-ix). Although she made these qualifications, Gatti
de Gamond did not distance herself from the more speculative portions of
Fourier's theory, nor did she attempt to suppress them. Instead, the final chapter of Fourier et son système explains these
theories in detail. She justifies her
decision in the last paragraph of the preface:
. . . I gave
myself the task of presenting the system in its entirety and, to some extent,
of taking the place of the author's works for those who might be frightened by
their bulk and their scientific form. It
was not my place to eliminate any essential part; I do not set myself up as a
judge, I give an exposition; or, at least, if I embrace the doctrine of
Association with the most complete conviction, I content myself, with respect
to Fourier's magnificent predictions on the future of the globe and the
destinies of souls, with repeating these words which terminate a remarkable
article by the author of riche et pauvre: If this doctrine is not a providential
revelation, surely it is proof of a powerful imagination. (x, my trans.)
Gatti de Gamond's
presentation was not completely frank, however.
Fourier et son système
suppressed all mention of the Master's plans for sexual and gastronomical
liberation, as an anonymous French anti-Fourierist tract of 1842 noted:
The works of
Fourier's disciples, . . . especially Madame Gatti de Gamond's, unanimously dissimulate
the scandals of Fourier's system, and denature it by giving it an air of
decency. (Le Système de Fourier étudié dans ses propres écrits, 55-56)
Both translations of Fourier et son système were published in London. The first, The Phalanstery, or Attractive Industry and Moral Harmony (1841),
was advertised in a journal familiar to the few American Fourierists of the
day, Hugh Doherty's London Phalanx.[19] The translator, Sophia Chichester, amplified
Gatti de Gamond's enthusiasm for Fourier's "magnificent
predictions." She is faithful to
Gatti de Gamond when the latter vigorously champions the theory of Universal
Unity, even claiming that Association is the necessary result of Christ's
mission.[20] This spiritualized socialism is preached with
enthusiasm, sometimes in strikingly Whitmanesque language: "The Law of
Attraction rules the universe, from the blade of grass, from the insect, to the
stars revolving in their appointed orbits."[21] By adding a long introduction in praise of
universal unity, as well as numerous passages embroidering Gatti de Gamond's
account of Harmonian life, and by deleting virtually all of Gatti de Gamond's
first three chapters (her summary of Fourier's proto-Marxist critique of
society), Chichester placed much more emphasis upon Fourierism's mystical
aspects. Published only one year after Social Destiny of Man, this tract
celebrated some of the tenets that British and American readers were most
likely to find objectionable.
Yet Chichester's enthusiasm has its limits: she suppresses
the theory's mysticism at the same time that she embraces it, the same double
gesture performed by Brisbane. For
example, the final chapter of The
Phalanstery is devoted to an exposition of Fourier's theory of "the Melioration
of Climates" (162), his belief that the implementation of social
harmony would lead to a beneficial global warming. Chichester adds several pages of recent
meteorological research to prove that "Fourier's ideas on this subject are
not Utopian" (172); however, both she and Gatti de Gamond fail to explain
that, according to Fourier, the couronne boréale was to be the primary
agent of this climactic change, and that the transformation of the aurora
borealis into the couronne boréale was to have been the immediate result
of the arrival of social Harmony (OC
1.41-52).
Granted,
Chichester may not have been suppressing mention of the Boreal Crown, but
simply had not read Quatre mouvements,
a rare book prior to its 1841 republication.
But there are other instances in which her discretion exceeded Gatti de
Gamond's. Later in the same chapter, for
example, she silently omitted Gatti de Gamond's footnote explaining that in the
congenial climate of Harmony, the average person would live one hundred
forty-four years.[22] More significantly, Gatti de Gamond's chapter
on Fourier's theory of cosmogonic metempsychosis—which held that each soul
alternates between 810 incarnations in this world and an equal number of
"extraterrestrial" incarnations before it, along the soul of each planet,
eventually merges into the "great soul"—was censored in its entirety.[23]
This revision indicates how far removed one English
Fourierist was from practicing the "simple, straight-forward, practicable
plan of social action, divorced from all extravagancies and possible
immoralities" that Bestor characterized as typical of Brisbane and the
American Fourierists. The numerous
references to Gatti de Gamond in early American Fourierist writings strongly
suggest that members of the American movement were influenced by these
translations.
Interestingly, the first American tracts betray a
similar tension between enthusiasm and embarrassment. For example, this tension is evident in the
first American handbook "to furnish the public with a brief synthetic view
of all the doctrines of Charles Fourier" (PV 5), Parke Godwin's A
Popular View of the Doctrines of Charles Fourier (1844). Godwin, who had taken over Brisbane's
editorial work for Phalanx in April
1844, published Popular View in the spring
of the same year (Guarneri 234). In its preface, Godwin takes pains to
distinguish his presentation of Fourierism from Brisbane's: while the latter is
credited for fully explaining "[t]he practical parts of the system and
some of the higher questions," Godwin also notes that Brisbane had
"judiciously" passed over "the abstruser points of inquiry . . .
until public sentiment was prepared to distinguish between the practical and
the purely theoretical doctrines."
While this silence may had been wise in 1840, Godwin argued, it was no
longer useful, for Fourierism's enemies were misrepresenting the doctrine to
the American public (6).
As with the English tracts, much of Popular View was a translation of a
French Fourierist treatise, in this instance, Hippolyte Renaud's Solidarité: Vue synthétique sur la doctrine
de Ch. Fourier (1842). Guarneri
rightly observes that Godwin's reworking of Renaud's treatise "tone[d]
down Fourier's sexual radicalism"; however, his claim that Godwin
"repudiated" Fourier's futurology is only partly correct (97). It is true that Godwin, following Renaud,
divides his book into two parts. The
first explains the principles of Fourier's social science and their practical
application in the phalanx; both Renaud and Godwin emphasize that these
teachings are the only ones accepted by all Fourierists (PV 73; cf. Renaud 141-143); the second is devoted to the more
speculative portions of Fourier's theory.
In an "Intermediate" chapter placed between the two parts,
Godwin emphasizes this distinction. He
argues that Associationism's enemies act in bad faith when they accuse the
"Societary or Phalansterian School" of planning "to abolish
property, the family relation, and religion," as none of these teachings
are part of the movement's creed:
The School of
Fourier proposes but one thing:
the organization of Labor in the
township. It has no other object;
no other faith, as a School. Individuals
are, of course, always at liberty to promulgate whatever opinions they may see
fit. (73)
As with the Harbinger editorial cited earlier, this
passage is typical of the movement's propaganda: it insists that the
Associationists should not be held responsible for any of Fourier's theories
that do not directly address social reform.
But there is an important distinction: the Harbinger editorialist categorically rejected the non-reform
doctrines, while Godwin, writing two years earlier, clearly stated that members
of the movement were free to make up their own minds. While Fourier's illuministic pronouncements
were not articles of faith for Associationists, neither were they anathema.
In fact, Godwin, still drawing heavily from Renaud,
went on to offer a strong argument for taking Fourier's non-social writings
seriously:
But as it is obvious that
Law, Government, Manners, and Religion, would all be more or less affected by a
unitary regime of Industry, as they would all be influenced to bring themselves
under the operation of some unitary law.
Fourier has extended his researches, and uttered his thought, as to what
would be the state of these Customs, Beliefs, etc., in the periods of social
Harmony. These conjectures, in the
domain of pure theory, and not followed by any proposition, are to be accepted
or rejected by the generations of the future, according to the light which time
and investigation may throw upon them.
It
is from this point of view that the reader is requested to study the second
part of this work, in which are elucidated those ideas only which Fourier
himself has called his musings or fancies (reveries). These fancies, it is true, in the minds of
many of us, possess a clear and signal truth;[24] but it
is only, we repeat, the practical side of Fourier's theory which is universally
adopted and defended by the whole school of Societary Reformers. (PV
73-74)
In other words, Fourier's
speculations are consistent with the rest of his unified field theory. As they give evidence of "the
magnificence of the intellect and the nobleness of the heart in which they were
born," they should be respected until they are disproved. Godwin's strategy was similar to Gatti de
Gamond's: he withheld few of the secrets of Fourierism, but disassociated
himself from the most speculative portions of the theory. His disclaimer is less than categorical,
however: “No one is asked to believe in
this second part; we do not ourselves individually accept all of it; and it is
given, as an amusement, solely to complete our plan.” (PV 74).
Even as he suggested that the second part should not be taken seriously,
Godwin left open the possibility that he finds some of Fourier's conjectures
congenial.
The second part of Popular
View is indeed much more forthcoming about visionary Fourierism than either
Brisbane or the English translators of Gatti de Gamond: the doctrines
summarized by Godwin include Fourier's theories of world government, climactic
change, and sexual relations in Harmony, as well as his theories of cosmogony,
metempsychosis, and universal analogy.
Of this assortment, the only doctrine categorically rejected by Godwin
was that of non-monogamous sexual relations in Harmony; even here, Godwin was
careful to note that Fourier's moral error was unintentional.[25] In several other cases, Godwin essentially
translates Renaud's discussion, but adds an occasional comment to distance
himself from Renaud's enthusiasm. For
example, in the discussion of Fourier's climatological theories—specifically,
his claims that the seasons can be regulated and the polar regions cultivated—Godwin
follows Renaud in arguing that these theories are less bizarre than they
seem. This argument, however, is
prefaced by a deflating disclaimer. The
first two sentences in the following quotation are direct translations (cf.
Renaud 179); the last sentence, added by Godwin, lends credence to Guarneri's
argument that Godwin categorically rejected the impractical components of
Fourier's theory:
These bold
affirmations are those which have led many to believe that Fourier allowed
himself to be deluded by his imagination.
Let us examine his predictions, and see whether they merit the raillery
and disdain with which they have been treated.
Let us see if there are not some faint grounds, at least, for the hope
that his speculations were not altogether whimsical and crazy. (79)
Similarly, in the cosmogony
chapter, Godwin translates Renaud's claim that "moral proofs" support
Fourier's theory of metempsychosis, then adds a footnote reminding the reader
that "[t]his reasoning . . . is given as from Fourier, and not by the
author personally."[26] These asides suggest that Godwin regarded the
entire second part of his book as an "amusement."
Yet not all of Godwin's additions suggested that he
rejected visionary Fourierism.
Immediately following the skeptical footnote cited above, Godwin translated
Renaud's claim that mesmerism and somnambulism offer evidence that people can
contact the "ultra-mundane" world (PV 96-97), then amplified this claim by adding six paragraphs of
his own arguing that the prophets and geniuses of this world are those who have
a more fully-developed aptitude for contacting the aromal realm. Godwin even argued that Swedenborg may be one
of the "modern prophets" sent "to lead Humanity through its
accidental destiny of Discord to its essential destiny of Science and Harmony"
(PV 97).
Further evidence of Swedenborgian influence can be
found in the following chapter. To
Renaud's unintentionally amusing examples of Fourier's theory of universal
analogy, Godwin added this footnote: "We are aware how fanciful and
inadequate these scattered instances must be.
They may be wrong, even, without invalidating the principle" (PV 103).
He then appended a six-page discussion comparing Fourierist and
Swedenborgian theories of universal analogy, his largest substantive addition
to Renaud's text. Although Godwin was
careful to note that the law of analogy was not accepted by all Fourierists
(106), he also wrote that "it has something in it so captivating, that
many persons have admitted it, even while rejecting other parts of Fourier's
theory" (104). Godwin also
faithfully and, apparently, unironically translated Renaud's defense of one of
Fourier's most ridiculed predictions, the transformation of the animal kingdom
that was to produce such species as "Anti-Lion, Anti-Tiger, Anti-Crocodile!"[27] These new creatures were to be created
through interplanetary intercourse: each planet has "sexual organs"
so that the "fecundation of a planet by other planets" can occur
(105).
Possibly, Godwin used this chapter to make good on his
promise to amuse his audience; nevertheless, I suspect that he was at least
partly serious. However risible
universal analogy might seem, there were certainly Swedenborgians who were
taking the concept seriously; as we shall see, some Americans were interested
in Fourier's version as well. Even if
Godwin himself was at that time a complete unbeliever in visionary Fourierism,
he was careful to note that belief did not disqualify one from participating in
the Associationist movement.
All three of these English-language Fourierist tracts
(Social Destiny of Man, The Phalanstery, and Popular View) emphasized Fourier's
program for radical social reform while simultaneously suppressing (or, in the
case of Popular View, devaluing) the
theory's irrational content. To this
extent, the traditional scholarly interpretation is correct; however, Bestor
overstated the case when he argued that Brisbane succeeded in separating the
theory's absurdities from its communitarian plan. In fact, as the "planetary beings"
passage from Social Destiny of Man
suggests, it would appear that