The other day, I was speaking to a friend about what we, as older scholars, should be saying and doing at this time–a historical moment fraught with political, pandemic, and personal challenges, and, perhaps, with opportunities.
He began speaking, and said “As XX said…” As soon as he had enunciated XX, I had in mind one French person, but he was actually about to quote another one.
Person 1: Jean Monnet—was a French economist and political leader. He is one of my heroes; in fact in my book on Leading Minds, I devote a chapter to him.
The First World War convinced Monnet that the centuries-long pattern of European nations (and then states) entering into predictable combat was extremely destructive; it ought not be allowed to continue. And so, for the next half century, he led the efforts to create a United Europe. And though Europe experienced another even more devastating war, and there continued to be opposition, Monnet was able to witness the creation of the European Union and to observe a peace that has held for more than half a century… alas, whether it will remain at peace is uncertain at this fraught moment.
Two quotations capture the thinking and the program of action of Jean Monnet:
“Europe has never existed. One must genuinely create Europe.”
“There will be no peace in Europe if the States rebuild themselves on the basis of national sovereignty, with its implications of prestige politics and economic protection... The countries of Europe are not strong enough individually to be able to guarantee prosperity and social development for their peoples. The States of Europe must therefore form a federation or a European entity that would make them into a common economic unit.”
But my friend actually had in mind Claude Monet, quite likely better known to the public-at-large. The great painter epitomizes the breakthrough that was Impressionism; he is probably more valued than any of his artistic colleagues. Like his younger namesake, Claude Monet was also tremendously upset by the warring countries. But— a generation older—Monet felt that his greatest contributions could be made by continuing to paint the way that he had, even when he became frail. And indeed, for well over a century, his artistry has given pleasure—and sometimes inspiration—to millions of viewers around the world. As Claude Monet put it,
”Yesterday I resumed work. It’s the best way to avoid thinking of these sad times…if these savages must kill me, it will be in the middle of my canvases, in front of all my life’s work.”
Those of us who are involved in the study and the stimulation of the good—good persons, good workers, good citizens—face a similar choice. We cannot delude ourselves into thinking that our efforts alone will have an effort on the larger scene—though that does not mean that we should not try. But it is legitimate for us to wonder—should we continue to carry out research and writing; should we drop our work and become political activists; or should we attempt to lead the life that we admire and respect and hope that our example will also influence others.
To make it more vivid, we can personify this dilemma: Does it make sense to devote our selves to a political activist life, like Senators John Kerry or John McCain; to the creation of powerful art, like novelist Toni Morrison or painter Helen Frankenthaler; to the improvement of world health, like the recently deceased Paul Farmer; or attempt to straddle between art and public life, like cellist Yo-Yo Ma?
We need to understand the world; but we also need to know ourselves.
Afterthought:
I felt a bit foolish that I was thinking of one Monnet, while my friend had in mind the other large personality—Monet. But I am not the only one who was confused. Decades ago, Pamela Harriman was being considered to be Ambassador to France. Senator Jesse Helms opposed the nomination because he thought that Harriman belonged to a political Society— the Jean Monnet Society that supported a united Europe; but actually Harriman belong to an artistic society that honored painter Claude Monet. She was confirmed (click here to learn more).
One “N” –or, in social science terms—an “N” of one—can make a big difference!
Reference
Gardner, H. (1995). Leading minds : An anatomy of leadership. Basic Books.