Blavatsky's Apolitical Stance/Political Neutrality

 

In a previous article, I wrote:

The original Theosophical Society was established with apolitical and non-violent peace- building policies.

Theosophists are of necessity the friends of all movements in the world, whether intellectual or simply practical, for the amelioration of the condition of mankind. We are the friends of all those who fight against drunkenness, against cruelty to animals, against injustice to women, against corruption in society or in government, although we do not meddle in politics. We are the friends of those who exercise practical charity, who seek to lift a little of the tremendous weight of misery that is crushing down the poor. (Letter I — 1888 Second Annual Convention — April 22-23, CW 9:247)

 

More formally, she states her concern about individual reform over administrative reforms:

  

Enq. Do you take any part in politics? Theo. As a Society, we carefully avoid them, for the reasons given below.To seek to achieve political reforms before we have effected a reform in human nature, is like putting new wine into old bottles. Make men feel and recognize in their innermost hearts what is their real, true duty to all men, and every old abuse of power, every iniquitous law in the national policy, based on human, social or political selfishness, will disappear of itself. Foolish is the gardener who seeks to weed his flower-bed of poisonous plants by cutting them off from the surface of the soil, instead of tearing them out by the roots. No lasting political reform can be ever achieved with the same selfish men at the head of affairs as of old. (Key to Theosophy, Section 12, The Relation of the T.S. to Political Reforms)

 

More philosophically, she proposes a stoic attitude towards politics:

 

Unconcerned about politics; ... the Society cares but little about the outward human management of the material world. The whole of its aspirations are directed toward the occult truths of the visible and invisible worlds. Whether the physical man be under the rule of an empire or a republic, concerns only the man of matter. His body may be enslaved; as to his Soul, he has the right to give to his rulers the proud answer of Socrates to his Judges. They have no sway over the inner man. ( [What Are the Theosophists?, The Theosophist, Vol. I, No. 1, October, 1879, p. 7], Collected Writings, 2, 105)

 

My personal view is that the original policies entail that a writer, lecturer or administrator in a theosophical organization should refrain from publicly taking active political roles and expressing partisan political views. However, doing this is not so easy. Elsewhere she states: 

 

Politics does not enter into the programme of our magazine’s activity. Yet as everything under the sun now seems to have become connected with politics, which appear to have become little else but a legal permission to break the ten commandments, a regular government license to the rich for the commission of all the sins which, when perpetrated by the poor, land the criminal in jail, or hoist him upon the gallows—it becomes difficult to avoid touching upon politics. There are cases which, emanating directly from the realm of political and diplomatic action, cry loudly to the common ethics of humanity for exposure and punishment.’ (Our 19th Century Christian Ethics [Lucifer, Vol. II, No. 12, August, 1888, pp. 482-484], Collected Writings, Vol. 10, p. 82)

 

One strategy that she advises is to keep things impersonal and objective, rather than focusing on specific people in a personal, ad hominem way: 

 

“We may be told, perhaps, that we ourselves are the first to break the ethical law we are upholding. That our theosophical periodicals are full of “denunciations”, and “Lucifer” lowers his torch to throw light on every evil, to the best of his ability. We reply – this is quite another thing. We denounce indignantly systems and organisations, evils, social and religious – cant above all: we abstain from denouncing persons. The latter are the children of their century, the victims of their environment and of the Spirit of the Age.” ("Is Denunciation a Duty?", Lucifer, December, 1888, CW, 10, 198)

 

Now Blavatsky is nothing if not outspoken, so in the short article, Our 19th Century Christian Ethics, she makes a rousing political critique of the treatment of Nathalie of Serbia, which touches upon ethical, religious, historical, sociological, anthropological, feminist, and even human rights perspectives which, to me, demonstrates an articulate, nuanced, informed, balanced analysis of the situation, that could serve as an example of how to engage in meaningful political commentary without veering into divisive partisan politics, conspirational theoretical speculations, religious dogmatism, and thus maintaining a position of political neutrality and objectivity, although the writing style has quite a Ciceronian melodramatic tone to it and the political context is very different from today. However note the remarkable prescience expressed in the article as well.

 

Natalija Obrenović (15 May 1859 – 8 May 1941), née Keshko, known as Natalie of Serbia, was the Princess of Serbia from 1875 to 1882 and then Queen of Serbia from 1882 to 1889 as the wife of Milan I of Serbia.