440 J.-A. PEMBERTON
Another outstanding, reason why UNESCO was to face greater chal-
lenges than had its predecessor was as follows: as Mayoux put it, one of
the ‘most grave responsibilities’ that was to soon confront UNESCO
was the ‘liquidation of the colonial era’. This responsibility, Mayoux
observed, raised a number of questions in regard to cultural policy and in
this regard he posed the following questions:
What to make, for example, of the “primitive” cultures? Where to place the
limit of the adaptable? Is all pre-logical thought to be abolished purely and
simply? Is it necessary to align, purely and simply, all currently non-civ-
ilised people with the current European civilisation? Can we conceive of
something else?^45Mayoux insisted that it would be fatal for UNESCO were it to act as
an ‘agent of uniformity,’ adding that to act in this manner was not in
the interests of ‘true civilisation’. Invoking Mistral, Mayoux maintained
that far from promoting uniformity, UNESCO should act as a guard-
ian of ‘particularity,’ that is, of ‘heterogenity,’ adding that particularity
was ‘one of the most precious attributes of man’ and that it should be
respected in relation to the smaller as much as to the larger cultures.^46
Given his approval of Mistral’s observations concerning the smaller cul-
tures, it is very likely that he would have agreed with following decla-
ration on the part of Febvre: ‘[i]n the final civilization that we envisage
there must be reflected everything that is of value in the civilizations we
know to-day. The humblest and the most remote of them has its contri-
bution to make to human progress.’^47
In addressing the question of how UNESCO was to preserve the
‘individuality of nations...and the diversity of cultures,’ Mayoux stated
that it was essential to preserve or relieve a ‘certain number of cultures,
or indeed the immense majority of individuals... from a mortal sense
of inferiority’ in the face of the civilisation of the ‘white western man’
which, whatever its spiritual failings, had been able to ‘subjugate matter
(^45) Mayoux, ‘La Coopération Intellectuelle Internationale: UNESCO,’ xxii.
(^46) Ibid., xxi.
(^47) UNESCO, ‘General Conference: First Session, Paris, 20 November–10 December,
1946,’ Programme Commission II, Sub-Commission on Social Sciences, Philosophy and
Humanistic Studies. C/Prog.Com./S.C.Soc.Sci./V.R.1.E, 19, UA.