The Economist - UK (2022-04-09)

The Economist April 9th 2022 Culture 75

Even  before  his  showdown  with  Ein­
stein,  though,  Bergson  was  mocked  for
purveying  metaphysical  mumbo­jumbo.
His  exaltation  of  intuition,  the  faculty
through  which  duration  is  apprehended,
over intellect provided a fat target for Ber­
trand Russell, a British logician. According
to Russell, writing in 1912, Bergson thought
that the universe was “a vast funicular rail­
way, in which life is the train that goes up,
and matter the train that goes down.” Like
advertising men Bergson relied upon “pic­
turesque  and  varied  statement”.  In  his
“History  of  Western  Philosophy”  (1945),
Russell  added  that  the  irrationalism  of
Bergson’s  philosophy  “harmonised  easily
with  the  movement  which  culminated  in
Vichy”—a  brutal  comment  about  a  Jew
who  refused  special  treatment  from  the
Nazi­backed regime.

Time present, past and future
Einstein and Bergson were a study in con­
trasts.  The  German­born  physicist  was  a
pacifist  and,  until  just  before  his  death,  a
meat­eater;  Bergson  found  philosophical
grounds for France’s role in the first world
war—and  was  a  vegetarian.  Their  clash  in
Paris  was  principally  over  Einstein’s
special theory of relativity, which had sup­
planted  the  unvarying  time  of  Isaac
Newton’s physics.
Relativity  states  that  time  flows  at  dif­
ferent rates—faster or slower—for observ­
ers  moving  with  respect  to  each  other,  as
most  do.  Space  compresses  too,  with  the
result  that  simultaneity  is  not  absolute.
This  means  that,  in  general,  distinct  ob­
servers  witness  events  separated  in  space
in different orders. Time and space blur to­
gether in a way implying that the past and
future may be as real as the present, just as
the  Moon  is  as  real  as  the  Earth,  a  view
sometimes  called  “eternalism”.  The  “dis­
tinction  between  past,  present  and  future
is  only  a  stubbornly  persistent  illusion”,
Einstein famously wrote.
This  was  a  frontal  challenge  to  Berg­
son’s  central  idea.  “If  time”,  he  wrote,  “is
thus  spread  out  in  space...it  takes  account
neither  of  what  is  essential  to  succession
nor of duration in so far as it flows.” Berg­
son  did  not  deny  Einstein’s  discoveries;
philosophy must be “constantly verified by
contact  with  the  positive  sciences”,  he
averred. But he maintained that relativity’s
profusion of times are not all equally real.
It  could  not  overthrow  the  “common­
sense” belief in “a single time, the same for
all beings and all things”. In fact, properly
understood, relativity confirms that. 
In defending this position, Bergson de­
nied the consequence of the special theory
illustrated  by  the  “twin  paradox”:  if  Peter
remains on Earth while Paul rides a rocket
into space and then returns, Peter will have
aged more than Paul. Special relativity says
that the faster something moves relative to

you,  the  slower  its  clock  will  tick,from

your  point  of  view.  Bergson  insistedthat

the  reunited  twins  will  have  aged  bythe

same amount. This proved to be his “Achil­

les heel”, writes Ms Canales.

Most  physicists  continue  to  disdain

Bergson,  not  mainly  because  of  histwin

gaffe but because of his attempted prison­

break  from  the  material  world.  CarloRo­

velli,  an  Italian  theoretical  physicist,

makes one dismissive reference to thephi­

losopher  in  his  recent  book  “The  Orderof

Time”. Bergson “correctly pointed outthat

experiential  time  has  more  featuresthan

the time the physicists were talking about”,

Mr  Rovelli  says.  But  he  “incorrectly de­

duced from that there must be something

that  escapes  physics  in  the  real  world.”

Now,  when  science  is  under  attackfrom

anti­vaxxers and others, Bergson’s spiritu­

alism  seems  to  some  not  just  wrong­

headed  but  dangerous.  Ms  Canales  saysa

physicist  warned  her  “that  my  career

would be finished” if she published abook

that took Bergson seriously. 

Yet  he  still  matters,  in  two  ways.He

continues to influence thinkers who deem

a  materialistic  account  of  the  world  tobe

inadequate, such as Rupert Sheldrake,au­

thor  of  “The  Science  Delusion”.  And  some

who  do  not  agree  that  science  is  deluded

still  find  inspiration  in  Bergson’s  ideas,

and seek to reconcile them with Einstein’s.

Louis de Broglie, a pioneer of quantum

physics, recognised Bergson as a seer.Had

he  studied  quantum  theory  “he  would

doubtless  have  observed  with  joy  thatin

the image of the evolution of the physical

world which it offers us, at each instantna­

ture is described as if hesitating betweena

multiplicity  of  possibilities”,  de  Broglie

wrote. Jenann Ismael, a philosopher ofsci­

ence, argues that any being, man or mach­

ine,  that  gathers  and  uses  information

would perceive time as passing and thefu­

ture as open. That time is no less realthan

Einstein’s  static  four­dimensional  “space­

time”, she says. There is a “sense of conflict

being replaced by a bridge”.

The debate in Paris found both thinkers

at  their  most  dogmatic.  Afterwards  Berg­

son  seems  to  have  had  second  thoughts

about  some  aspects  of  “Duration  andSi­

multaneity”—though he never abandoned

his  basic  position.  In  subsequent  decades

Einstein  seemed  to  budge  more. He

acknowledged  that  metaphysics  plays a

role in science, and became more troubled

by the failure of physics to give a complete

description of time. 

The “problem of Now worried himseri­

ously”,  wrote  the  philosopher  RudolfCar­

nap.  It  means  “something  essentiallydif­

ferent  from  the  past  and  the  future”,yet

“this  important  difference  does  not and

cannot occur within physics”. Perhapsthe

ageing  physicist  came  close  to  admitting

that a philosopher’s time exists after all.n

NewAmericanfiction

The empire

strikes back

A

s wellastheholycityofIslam,Mecca

isthenameofa speckonthemapin

theCoachellaValleyofsouthernCalifor­

nia. It lies in the Inland Empire, the

irrigated desert region where Mexican

farmworkers harvest cantaloupes and

grapes.Writingaboutitsdenizens,Joan

Didion waspily riffed about “girls for

whomalllife’spromisecomesdowntoa

waltz­lengthwhiteweddingdressandthe

birthofa Kimberlyora Sherryora Debbi.”

These“dreamersofthegoldendream”

werecuriositiestoDidion,unimaginably

distantfromherenclaveinMalibu.Susan

Straight,a novelistbornandbroughtupin

Riverside,notfarfromMecca,wasshocked

by these disparagements. Ms Straight

“knew aversionof us,of thegirls and

womenhere,thatwasnotin[Didion’s]es­

say”,she wrotein a memoir. “Girls de­

scendedfromMexicanandblackfamilies

arrivedinthe1920s,andwhitefamiliesar­

rivedfromArkansasaftertheKoreanwar.”

In“Mecca”,hertriumphant,polyphon­

icnewnovel,theworkingpeoplebehind

theglamouroftheGolden Stateare re­

vealed inalltheir multiplicity, withMs

Straight’strademarktenderness andhu­

mour.Throughthebraided, oftenheart­

breakingstoriesofhalfa dozenpeopleof

African­American, Mexican, Mixtec and

Spanishdescent—copandcleaner,florist,

Mecca. By Susan Straight. Farrar, Straus and

Giroux; 384 pages; $28

An American tale