Science and Politics
Though Samuelson had begun to immerse himself in economics and mathematics, he still followed what was going on in the wider university. On June 18,
j. This session was actually organized by the American Statistical Association, holding its meeting simultaneously with the American Economic Association (American Economic Association 1935).
1934, at the end of his junior year, his diary contained another discussion of science, focusing on the split he found at Chicago between two camps. On one side were Mortimer Adler and Hutchins, who argued for what Samuelson called an “absolutist” view, in which it is necessary to approach science with a preconceived hypothesis rather than “indulging in meaningless measurement, i.e. raw empiricism.”39 The other side was skeptical about whether one could know, in advance, what was significant, and it stressed the importance of measurement, as well as logical thinking. Samuelson’s assessment was that there was no more than a difference of emphasis and “even that is not great.” However, while the implications for scientific practice were not significant, the philosophical implications concerned absolutism and relativism, and whether there were an infinite number of hypotheses that could explain reality. This led into an argument against Hutchins’s Great Books program—namely, that great thinkers do not necessarily provide the best exposition of their own thoughts; though he does not draw this conclusion, it is a clear argument for the use of textbooks rather than original works. Echoing the anti-materialism of just over a year earlier, he reflected that the problems of living, to which education should provide the answer, were only “in small part economic and vocational”; rather, they concerned “the finer acts of life—the forming of tastes, habits, attitudes, which contribute to more enjoyable living.”40
Later in 1934, Samuelson discussed the scientific basis for psychoanalysis.
In general, he claimed, people either endorsed psychoanalysis or condemned it completely. In contrast, what was needed was to test it using “scientific methods” such as control groups, statistical correlation, and quantitative comparisons.41 It was also important to analyze Freud’s work to distinguish between his hypotheses and his underlying assumptions, for this was the necessary prelude to testing the theory. His skepticism concerning the use of rationality to achieve desirable ends (a theme picked up from Knight or from Director, perhaps) was strengthened by news of events in Germany and stimulus coming from his reading of Lion Feuchtwanger’s The Oppermanns (2001), published in German the previous year and in English in March 1934. It was a political novel about how events in Germany affected the lives of individuals, told through the story of a typical, fairly affluent Jewish family, and was aimed at alerting the world to the disaster that was engulfing Germany, from which Feuchtwanger himself had fled in 1932.It is not clear what prompted Samuelson to read this book when he did, but during the previous month the American press contained reports of the Nazi seizure of Jewish businesses and the banning of Jewish publications, as well as of Jews escaping from Germany. On June 28, the New York Times reported that $704,000 had been raised in New York City toward a target of $1.2 million for the relief and resettlement of German Jews. It was clear that German Jews faced a crisis and that action needed to be taken. On July 2, Samuelson wrote in his diary,
All day I have been reading The Oppermanns by Leon [sic] Feuchtwanger. It is the story of a German Jewish family, and the vicissitudes thru which they went as a result of the coming to power of the anti-Semitic national socialists. The book is a remarkably restrained nomination of facts, written from the standpoint of a Jew, and I suppose a traditional humanitarian liberal.
He went on to reflect on his own feelings, suggesting that strong emotions were likely irrational, for rationality implied that one should have sympathy with any victims, not just with fellow Jews.
It has awakened in me a feeling of sympathy, and a moderate amount of emotion, but to a less degree than in the case, I think, of the average Jew. For altho' I recognize the suffering involved, I also realize that this suffering is not perilous to Jews, and to Germany [sic]. During the post-war years the Turks butchered a few hundred thousand Armenians, and people like my father deplored the fact, but were little touched by it. Now, however, that people with whom they have sentimental ties binding them are touched they immediately become emotionally disturbed, and thereby often irrational in behavior. All the above is no criticism of their being emotionally disturbed—it is merely an illustration of the nature of sympathy. In this case I share to some degree in the emotion, for which I offer no apology, but I also, at the same time, recognize the psychological origin of this emotion.42
Though his father was not religious, he felt a strong emotional connection with Jews in Europe that Samuelson dismissed as “sentimental” and a barrier to rational thought. He admitted that he felt some emotion, but rationalized it as psychological in origin. Emotion, he claimed, led to wishful thinking that might be counterproductive. How many of the people who advocate an economic boycott of German goods, he asked, had rationally tried to determine its probable effects, and was it even possible to ascertain this with certainty? This led him to question whether human behavior could be rational.
The whole business in Germany weakens further my faith in the possible use of rationality by human beings to secure the objectives which they consider desirable. Brutality, the use of force, the unleashing of hate, etc., on the part of some Germans, has evoked from previously tolerant men, answering feelings of hate, desire to use violence, etc.
Even Einstein, the embodiment of rationality, had fallen victim to this. “Previously,” Samuelson wrote, “he held that no war was justified.
Now because of his experience with the Nazis, he is willing to admit that in rare cases war may be justified. But each person always thinks that in his special case war is justified.” These remarks are particularly striking, given that he was later to develop economic theory on the basis of rational choice: he is presenting rationality as an ideal that people can never attain.He tried reading the history of an American family, Gertrude Stein's The Making of Americans (presumably the abridged edition that had just been published that year, 1934), but he was not impressed with the unconventional writing style for which the book is renowned, and he put it aside. The next day, on July 7, he returned to the issue of Jewish identity, explaining that his own ideas had changed back and forth.
In my own mind, I have not been able to arrive at any conclusions or convictions concerning the “Jewish” question. At one time I was for “assimilation”; later after reading the “Island Within” I swung over more or less to the view of Lewisohn et al. Today I am in doubt.
This mention of The Island Within fι928), a novel about the experience of a Jewish family struggling as immigrants in a hostile America, shows both that Samuelson had been thinking about his Jewish identity and that he was doing so through reading literature. Ludwig Lewisohn came from a family that had converted to Christianity, but after being told that as a Jew he could never teach English in an American university, he returned to his family's Jewish heritage, becoming an outspoken opponent of assimilation. No doubt reflecting his social science training, Samuelson pointed out that though two cultures coming into close contact would eventually fuse, the question remained about how quickly this could happen.
The question is: Can the Jews be assimilated? And at what costs can they be assimilated? To the first question I was about to answer “yes.” But if we use “can” in the broader sense of the “will,” then I am not so sure.
Or, in the face of the past conflicts between the peoples, and the present attitudes, appearances, and cultures of the people, can they be assimilated?Even to this question, I would answer a tentative affirmative. Given time and proximity, in this country at least, I believe that the Jews will gradually more and more become like Americans until finally they will be to a much greater degree than now indistinguishing. I state only what seems to me to be a probability, and I believe it despite the two thousand years of maintenance of differences between the groups. This fusion of culture (and incidentally, of blood) will progress to the extent that any factors which produce isolation are reduced.
After discussing the physiological and cultural differences, he went on from arguing that assimilation was possible to arguing that it was “necessary and inevitable,” at least for the majority of Jews for whom Zionism was not an option.
We must now discuss the costs of assimilation. There are some who argue that it is at too great a cost, and therefore argue against it. But is there any choice open? Either the Jews must withdraw from non- Jewish society to a home of their own, or they must become more assimilated? For any other accommodations must be only temporary and fraught with peril to the Jews. Now, the question presents itself[:] [I]s there any possibility of the Jews to any great numbers, withdrawing from Western Society to such a place as Palestine? To me, this seems remote, and could only come about if all the Jews were forced to leave. For modern American Jews are more American than Jews, and would not willingly leave behind the institutions and life to which they are accustomed.
This is not to condemn Zionism. It is merely to point out that Zionism is only a solution for a small percentage of Jews. It is a refuge for the outcasts, the homeless, the persecuted. But it can be a homeland for them only as long as they are few in numbers. Modern Jewry is committed to the non-Jewish world by ties which in my opinion are unbreakable. They would not, and could not, migrate en masse to Palestine.
It is upon them, therefore, to reduce the barriers between them and the people amongst whom they live. This may be done only perhaps at the cost of friction and conflict at first, and loss in Jewish solidarity and peculiarly Jewish customs and individuality; but these costs are necessary and inevitable, for the Ghetto is disintegrating under modern conditions, whether we like it or not.
He was clearly speaking for himself when he asserted that modern American Jews were more American than they were Jews and that his father was being irrational in his emotional attachment to German Jews. In his attempt to be completely rational, a position he had previously argued to be unsustainable, he was implying that his primary identity was not with his family—that he was indeed an American with no ties to the past.