the crab & musket

The word “loyalty” makes me think of flimsy punch-cards printed with arrays of takeaway coffees or Subway sandwiches. It reminds me of the soldiers of World War I, naïvely believing in something more than the cynical game of geopolitics. It describes simple-minded faithful canines, and those who toe the party line.

Even a hundred years ago, loyalty had a poor reputation. In 1907, Josiah Royce set out to rehabilitate the idea of loyalty from its unsavoury historical baggage. He particularly regretted the “ancient and disastrous association” between loyalty and the nationalistic war-spirit. In a series of lectures at Harvard University, he laid out his thesis. His aim was to prove that true loyalty was the source of all other virtues.

I came across Royce’s ideas in a book by another author¹ and became fascinated with his specific definition of loyalty. The ideas he proposed kept echoing back at me. Conversations in the media and in our public spaces hinted at a desire for loyalty. The structure Royce described seemed familiar — echoed in my own thoughts and feelings, and in those of my friends.

I figured this had to be something worth exploring. So I’ve decided to present Royce’s arguments, condensing them into a briefer form to make them accessible. I want to see if these ideas resonate with other people — or if I was just projecting my own interest onto the discussions around me. I want to begin conversations.

I want to bring a new idea — or rather, an old one — into our mental toolbox so that we can recognise when it applies to people and events around us. I want us to be fluent in the talk of loyalty.

0. Signposts

Let me quickly describe the scope of what I want to talk about in this article:

1. In the first section I’ll briefly introduce Royce’s whole philosophical framework, of which loyalty is the central piece. I won’t cover it in detail, but I think it’s valuable to see a glimpse of the intellectual context these ideas live in.
2. Next we’ll explore Royce’s “pragmatic” definition of loyalty and break down its three requirements. (As opposed to his later, more philosophical definition of loyalty, which we won’t discuss.)
3. I’ll lay out the benefits Royce sees in the loyal life,
4. and then I’ll introduce some examples, since he gives only a few of them himself.

Each time I quote Royce, I will be referring to the text of the online version of The Philosophy of Loyalty, a transcript of the lecture series he gave at Harvard University.

1. The grand philosophical exception

The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy calls Royce the “grand philosophical exception” to other writers on loyalty.² Despite this — or maybe because of it — they seem reluctant to quote him too often. The extent to which Royce made loyalty into a universal philosophical framework was, by his own admission, embarrassing!

Don’t worry if these ideas don’t make much sense yet. Hopefully this article, in explaining the first part, will make the latter parts more comprehensible. At the very least, you may start to appreciate why Stanford gave him such an impressive epithet.

Idea one: individual loyalty to causes

Royce believed that loyalty — defined as the “willing and practical and thoroughgoing devotion by a person to a cause” — was the most reliable way to live a happy, satisfied and worthwhile life. He writes that the loyal “are the only human beings who can have any reasonable hope of genuine success.” He also saw it as the primary virtue, the foundation on top of which all other good behaviour must be built.

What constitutes loyalty, and what constitutes a valid cause, I will try to explain in this article.

Idea two: universal loyalty to loyalty

Loyal individuals must use loyalty itself — “the one cause which is worthy of all men’s devotion” — as a guiding principle to discern between good and bad causes. Royce believed that acting on this principle would lead to a just society, one that was harmonious in conscience even if not free of conflict. A good cause according to this theory is one that encourages, rather than inhibits, others’ ability to act loyally.

Christopher Lasch proposed that this principle could alleviate the conflicts of a particularist society.³ I think that the implementation of this idea is hampered by Royce’s insistence not to judge the loyalties of others, but we won’t discuss it in this article.

Idea three: loyalty is the belief in absolute truth

Royce develops his theory of loyalty into an all-encompassing ideology that stood opposed to the pragmatism espoused by his good friend William James and others.⁴ He argues that a “spiritual unity of life, which transcends the individual experience of any man, must be real”, because loyalty “is a service of causes that, from the human point of view, appear superpersonal.”

This transcendence explains loyalty’s power, and its place as the primary virtue. It also tints loyalty with a religious colour which many of his colleagues apparently viewed with “amusement, and sometimes with a notable impatience.”

Community

Royce went even further in his philosophy of community, described here by Stanford:⁵

Finally, beyond the actual communities that we directly encounter in life there is the ideal “Beloved Community” of all those who would be fully dedicated to the cause of loyalty, truth and reality itself.

Whether or not you subscribe to his metaphysics, I hope you will be able to agree that Royce’s vision of practical loyalty is interesting. My own hope is that understanding loyalty would help me live a more fulfilling life and, just maybe, to help others live better in community together.

Let’s now look in depth at idea one: Royce’s concept of loyalty.

2. Loyalty redefined

The first lecture of Royce’s series introduces a new definition of the idea of loyalty. I cannot word it better than Royce himself (though I did add the bulleted formatting and emphases):

Loyalty shall mean, according to this preliminary definition: The willing and practical and thoroughgoing devotion by a person to a cause. A man is loyal when,

• first, he has some cause to which he is loyal;
• when, secondly, he willingly and thoroughly devotes himself to this cause;
• and when, thirdly, he expresses his devotion in some sustained and practical way.

(Apologies to women who are reading this. Royce uses masculine pronouns by default, though he means to include all people.)

This definition has several striking features. They distinguish it from other ways of thinking about loyalty. From the bottom to the top:

Sustained and practical devotion

Royce is firm: you cannot be loyal in sentiment, only in action. He writes that “loyalty never means the mere emotion of love for your cause”. Love for a cause is a fine emotion to have, and should come hand-in-hand with genuine loyalty to that cause. But action is necessary to create the benefits of the loyal life.

Will and individualism

The stipulation that one must be “willingly and thoroughly” devoted ensures that we don’t mistake coercion for true loyalty. While strong loyalty might seem like a collectivist ideal, Royce begins with the necessary individuality of each human:

Yes, the entire and infinite visible world … seems to each of you to have its centre about where the bridge of your own nose chances to be.

He emphasises that loyalty preserves and enhances personal autonomy, rather than erasing it:

Your only recourse [from the problem of deciding what to do with your life] is to assert your autonomy by choosing a cause, and by loyally living, and, when need be, dying for that cause. Then you will not only assert yourself by your choice of a cause, but express yourself articulately by your service. The only way to be practically autonomous is to be freely loyal.

I’ll discuss a little further down the reason Royce thinks this outcome is good for people. Notice, for now, how Royce embraces the idea that free expression (and not just free, but articulate expression!) is important to the human psyche. He closes his second lecture with this cheerful exhortation:

I then say, be indeed autonomous. Be an individual. But for Heaven’s sake, set about the task.

The task that we are to set about is our cause.

The superpersonal cause

The most significant clause of Royce’s rehabilitated definition of loyalty relates to causes. I have left it to last because it is so central to Royce’s idea of loyalty, but is more novel and surprising than the other two parts.

Royce discusses causes at great length. The three distinguishing features of a cause which can inspire true loyalty are:

1. The cause must have personal (or selfish) value to you, the loyal follower. Royce cannot conceive of loyalty to a cause that the devotee sees as worthless.
2. The cause must also have value outside your own self. It must be “objective” as he puts it, by potentially having value to other people. Why? Because:
3. The cause must concern others; it must be social, so that shared loyalty can bind us together with others. The possibility of having “fellow-servants” around us fulfils a deep social need.

The word Royce uses to sum up these ideas is “superpersonal”. Causes are not merely personal, having value only to one person. Nor are they interpersonal, shared privately between a handful of people. A cause that can inspire true loyalty must be superpersonal, uniting many people together in a shared mission.

This changes our understanding of relationships that we colloquially think of as “loyal”. For example: under Royce’s definition, I cannot be loyal to a friend. My relationship with my friend is interpersonal, not superpersonal. I cannot expect a stranger to be interested in acting with “thoroughgoing and practical devotion” in service of my relationship with my friend.

That’s not to say that I should not act with caring tenderness towards them, or be dependable and reliable, or consider their interests above my own or others’. Royce argues that when I act in these good ways towards my friend, I am pursuing my loyalty to the superpersonal cause of sincere friendship. The way I act upon this loyalty is by treating my friend well. But it is not to the friend that I am loyal.

This is the grand philosophical structure that Royce built around loyalty. He saw loyalty as the motivating force behind all virtuous acts we perform. We all have loyalties, whether we know them or not. It would simplify our complex ethical environment, he thought, if we realised loyalty was the cornerstone our moral lives are built around.

When loyalty is fully embraced and expressed, Royce insists, many benefits follow.

3. The loyal life

So far I’ve introduced Royce’s ideas without talking much about why anyone might find them worthwhile. Royce believed that loyalty is the only reliable way to personal satisfaction in life. The two most significant components of this loyal life are its defeat of the problem of individualism, and its resilience against failure and disappointment.

The problem of individualism

Given the fundamental psychological truth of individualism, Royce describes a problem every thinking person faces. We all strive to lead lives of happiness and significance — to ourselves, or to the wider world. But we are terrible at discerning how to do that. How do we know what will make us content? Content not just this instant, but when we inevitably lie on the deathbed and review our life?

Our hedonistic individual desire is no reliable guide to long-term happiness. And when we imitate one of the many paths to happiness suggested by the society around us, we don’t have sufficient leeway for our individual expression. Royce sees these two forces — individualistic desire and social imitation — being constantly in conflict:

These ways of the world appeal to our imitativeness, and so we learn from the other people how we ourselves are in this case to live. Yet no, this very learning often makes us aware of our personal contrast with other people, and so makes us self-conscious, individualistic, critical, rebellious; and again we are thrown back on ourselves for guidance.

Seeing the world’s way afresh, I see that it is not my way. I revive. I assert myself. My duty, I say, is my own. And so, perhaps, I go back again to my own wayward heart.

Loyalty, he says, is where “mere social conformity” unifies with our heart’s desires. The loyal discover a cause, decide to submit to its needs, and then act wholeheartedly in its service. They have given up some of their ‘freedom’, because they are now obliged to serve the cause. But they have achieved articulate expression of their desires through their choice of cause.

Solved, for the loyal, is the problem of knowing how to balance their desires with the pressures of the external world. Now freed from doubt and indecision, Royce argues, the devotee can act confidently.

Loyalty in failure

Plutarch wrote this about the death of Gaius Marius, eminent statesman and general of the Roman Republic:⁶

And therefore though he had lived to be seventy years old, and was the first man to be elected consul for the seventh time, and was possessed of a house and wealth which would have sufficed for many kingdoms at once, he lamented his fortune, in that he was dying before he had satisfied and completed his desires.

The folklore, literature and history of humankind is full of stories of people whose ambition consumed them — whether in success or in failure. Ambition might lead us to attempt great things, but only a few of us will succeed at them. Sometimes ambition leads us too far, wading like Macbeth through rivers of blood. Sometimes fortune upsets the most meticulous plans. But even those who succeed, like Marius, are left wanting more.

Royce sees loyalty as an escape from the prison of great ambition, and from the vagaries of chance. There are two ways this happens:

1. The activity of loyally pursuing a cause is its own reward. The act of working towards a goal one sees as self-evidently worthwhile is satisfying. The binding together of one’s passion and effort with other people involved in the same cause is invigorating.
2. The responsibility for achieving the cause’s aim does not rest on the individual. When one acts together with others, each is absolved of their individual failures.

When “the show must go on”, the lead actor is empowered by the knowledge that their understudy has been loyally waiting in the wings, prepared for the moment when they might be needed. The revolutionary needn’t fear imprisonment, knowing others will continue the fight in their place.

The loyal are satisfied by the act of living loyally, every day of their lives. They also have the psychological security of an ongoing movement where success is not limited by their own effort.⁷

This conclusion doesn’t remove the potential for movements to have leaders. Royce believed charismatic leaders were important (if not sufficient) for inspiring true loyalty, especially in the early days of a cause. But it does support the modern view of history rather than the “great man” theory of the past. Feats great and small are not accomplished by the efforts of individuals alone, but by hosts of loyal contributors.

The limits of loyalty

I’ve so far been uncritical in presenting this vision of the loyal life. My presentation of loyalty has focused on its ideal form, rather than the messy and compromised version we might see in our own lives. There are many unanswered questions. I will attempt to forestall (or maybe prompt) a few of those with some brief apologia before continuing:

• While loyalty may be good for the loyal, it may of course be harmful for others who they are opposed to. (In other words, yes, you can be a loyal Nazi. Some writers on loyalty disagree with this.) We haven’t looked at what Royce thinks makes a good cause, only what makes a superpersonal cause.
• Along the same lines, I believe warfare can be conducted loyally, and can indeed bring the benefits Royce describes. However, I think loyal warfare has rarely (if ever) been seen in human history. Agreements like the Geneva convention are an attempt to realise it, but they have fallen short or been ineffective.
• Loyalty is not blind. Surrendering one’s individual will to the service of a cause doesn’t have to mean surrendering one’s intellect. Royce encourages us to actively reflect on the legitimacy of the causes we follow, and to reject causes that have ceased to be worthy.
• One may have many competing loyalties, and a great deal of difficulty might come from deciding between them, if they have conflicting demands. However, the loyal are comforted knowing they are choosing between good options.
• Loyalty needn’t be sworn, or even conscious, for us to obtain its benefits. Many of us live lives that exemplify loyalty’s highest ideals, without ever having heard of Royce. But hopefully, having been introduced to the concept, we will recognise it more easily, and stand a better chance of achieving it.

4. Examples

Royce tends to use examples that even he acknowledges are stereotypical:

The devotion of a patriot to his country, when this devotion leads him actually to live and perhaps to die for his country; the devotion of a martyr to his religion; the devotion of a ship’s captain to the requirements of his office when, after a disaster, he works steadily for his ship and for the saving of his ship’s company until the last possible service is accomplished, so that he is the last man to leave the ship, and is ready if need be to go down with his ship.

He goes in-depth with one political example: William Lenthall, the Speaker of the House in 1642. When King Charles I famously demanded he reveal the locations of dissenting parliamentarians,⁸ Lenthall’s response was this:

Your Majesty, I am the Speaker of this House, and, being such, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak save as this House shall command; and I humbly beg your Majesty’s pardon if this is the only answer that I can give to your Majesty.

The Speaker’s refusal to compromise the requirements of his office epitomises “personal dignity greater than kingship, the dignity that any loyal man, great or humble, possesses whenever he speaks and acts in the service of his cause.”

Now I will add a few more illustrations.

Loyalty in politics

Loyalty in politics is often confused with faithfulness to the agenda of an individual or party. While loyalty to a political party can satisfy Royce’s criteria, one is obliged to continually assess whether the party is a worthy cause. It may be that the ‘party line’ becomes too self-serving to remain truly superpersonal.

This article from Slate paints a perfect picture of broken loyalty in politics:

My favorite illustration of the misguided notion of loyalty that ran rife through the Bush years was the testimony of White House Political Director Sara Taylor to the Senate committee investigating the firings of U.S. attorneys deemed insufficiently loyal. Declining to answer a question, Taylor said, “I took an oath to the president.”

“Did you mean, perhaps,” Leahy asked, “that you took an oath to the Constitution?”

The Speaker, in Royce’s example, did not confuse loyalty to his office with loyalty to his King.

Politicians are vilified in the media and in casual conversations. They often speak of causes, but they act in ways that are corrupt or self-serving. It seems we all want politicians to demonstrate true loyalty, especially to the causes which we vote for them to pursue.

Religion as loyalty

Religion (Christianity⁹ in particular, which I am most familiar with) bears many resemblances to Royce’s loyalty.¹⁰ That much was probably obvious already, but let’s go a bit deeper.

In Christian theology, humans are in slavery to sin, to their desires that contravene God’s will for their lives. True freedom is freedom from sin, freedom granted in order to live in the way God intended. Underlying this is the existence of an ideal, a perfect way God intended humans to be. This perfect humanity glorifies God and satisfies the believer.

Compare this to Royce’s assertion that living loyally is ideal for humans. Loyalty frees us from indecision and distraction, frees us in order to live in the way that leads to true satisfaction.

Neither promises an easy or a successful life. Both, however, claim that the desires which come naturally to us are warped.¹¹ Self-control is important to both gospel freedom and to loyalty. It allows us to overcome our natures and attain better things.

Loyalty of workers and consumers

Can you be loyal to a company? Surely if a nation-state is a fitting object of loyalty, then a large company, which you may serve as employee or customer, could also fulfil the conditions to become a valid cause.

What about a brand? We often speak of ‘brand loyalty’, but I am more inclined to say that our brand preferences are ways of expressing our loyalty to other causes. For example, I have a Fairphone because it is a (small) step towards the dream of a more compassionate economy.

In my experience, startups often elicit loyalty. In early employees, there is frequently personal faithfulness to the founders. But I find there is also abundant loyalty, especially among founders, to an abstract, ambitious cause. Sometimes this is the clichéd possibility of changing the world through what they’re doing. Other times it is the shared ideal of entrepreneurship, striking out and forging a path together. It is loyalty that sees the small team through the company’s early challenges.

I recently saw part of a documentary on the Seabin project. The interviewer asked: “What does success look like for you? … Seabin’s not going to save the world, is it?” Pete, the device’s inventor, replied:

It’s definitely not going to save the world. But it’s a start, it’s a step in the right direction of saving the world.

His acknowledgement of being only part of the solution, combined with the passion, time and resources he poured into the project, seem incredibly loyal to me.

Regretfully, I’ve only introduced these examples in their shallowest forms. But I hope they have been able to help you imagine loyalty more concretely.

5. Coda

I have tried to explain Josiah Royce’s unique concept of loyalty, and why it is interesting to me, in the hope that it might be interesting to you. True loyalty, Royce claimed, is a voluntary, active devotion to a superpersonal cause. It helps us conquer our conflicting desires, and gives us a social purpose that fulfils deep needs in our being.

If you have any thoughts about what I’ve written — positive or negative, academic or emotional — I would be very grateful to hear them.