‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Critique of Nationalist Amnesia

Abstract

One of the most perplexing contradictions of modern times is the fact that while the twentieth century has been a century of increasing belief in principles of human rights, democratic ideals, the equality of human beings, social justice, peaceful resolution of conflict and of the barbarism of war, yet at the same time it has been the bloodiest century in all human history. Two world wars and various forms of genocide are among the mass brutalities that distinguish the twentieth century as the most savage century of human history. Such rise in mass brutality was unpredicted by classical sociological theorists who were writing in the second half of the nineteenth century. It is amazing that the masters of sociological theory either did not pay much attention to the question of war and peace, or were extremely optimistic about the prospects for peace in the twentieth century. Both Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer wrote extensively about the contrast between traditional “military” society and modern “industrial” society. Unlike the military type of society, they argued, industrial society engages in productive, positive, and constructive activities, and facilitates competition among societies through peaceful trade and commerce. Other classical theorists ignored the question of war and peace, assuming that war among nations was a matter of the past. Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber rarely engaged in a direct discussion of war or peace.