studies in the
Bábí and Bahá’í Religions
Volume Eighteen
Alain Locke
Faith and Philosophy
Studies in the Bábí and Bahá’í Religions
(formerly Studies in Bábí and Bahá’í History)
Anthony A. Lee, General Editor
Studies in Bábí and Bahá’í History, Volume One,
edited by Moojan Momen (1982).
From Iran East and West, Volume Two,
edited by Juan R. Cole and Moojan Momen (1984).
In Iran, Volume Three, edited by Peter Smith (1986).
Music, Devotions and Mashriqu’l-Adhkár, Volume Four,
by R. Jackson Armstrong-Ingram (1987).
Studies in Honor of the Late H. M. Balyuzi, Volume Five,
edited by Moojan Momen (1989).
Community Histories, Volume Six, edited by Richard Hollinger (1992).
Symbol and Secret: Qur’an Commentary in Bahá’u’lláh’s Kitáb-i Íqán,
Volume Seven, by Christopher Buck (1995).
Revisioning the Sacred: New Perspectives on a Bahá’í Theology,
Volume Eight, edited by Jack McLean (1997).
Modernity and the Millennium: The Genesis of the Baha’i Faith in the
Nineteenth-Century Middle East, distributed as Volume Nine,
by Juan R. I. Cole, Columbia University Press (1999).
Paradise and Paradigm: Key Symbols
in Persian Christianity and the Bahá’í Faith, distributed as Volume Ten,
by Christopher Buck, State University of New York Press (1999).
Religion in Iran: From Zoroaster to Bahau’llah, distributed as
Volume Eleven, by Alessandro Bausani, Bibliotheca Persica Press (2000).
Evolution and Bahá’í Belief: ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Response to Nineteenth-Century
Darwinism, Volume Twelve, edited by Keven Brown (2001).
Reason and Revelation, Volume Thirteen,
edited by Seena Fazel and John Danesh (2002).
Bahá’ís in the West, Volume Fourteen, edited by Peter Smith (2004).
Search for Values: Ethics in Bahá’í Thought, Volume Fifteen,
edited by John Danesh and Seena Fazel (2004).
Táhirih in History: Perspectives on Qurratu’l-‘Ayn from East and West,
Volume Sixteen, edited by Sabir Afaqi (2004).
Táhirih: A Portrait in Poetry, Volume Seventeen,
edited by Amin Banani, with Joshua Kessler and Anthony A. Lee (2004).
ALAIN LOCKE
Inscribed “To James Weldon Johnson,
in esteem and cordial regard, June 20, 1926. Alain Leroy Locke.”
Courtesy of Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Beinecke Library Photonegatives Collection.
studies in the Bábí AND Bahá’í Religions
Volume Eighteen
Anthony A. Lee
General Editor
Alain Locke
Faith and Philosophy
by
Christopher Buck, Ph.D.
Kalimát
Press
Los Angeles
Copyright © 2005 by Kalimát Press
All Rights Reserved
Manufactured in the United States of America
First Edition
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Buck, Christopher, 1950Alain Locke : faith and philosophy / by Christopher Buck.-- 1st ed.
p. cm. -- (Studies in the Bábí and Bahá’í religions ; v. 18)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 1-890688-38-X (pbk.)
1. Locke, Alain LeRoy, 1886-1954--Religion.
2. Locke, Alain LeRoy, 1886-1954--Philosophy. 3. Bahai Faith-United States. 4. African American intellectuals--Biography.
5. African American philosophers--Biography. I. Title. II. Series.
E185.97.L79B83 2005
191--dc22 2004029582
Kalimát Press
1600 Sawtelle Blvd., Suite 310
Los Angeles, California 90025
www.kalimat.com
orders@kalimat.com
kalimatp@aol.com
Contents
Acknowledgments
ix
Foreword
by Leonard Harris, Ph.D.
xiii
Chapter One:
Introduction
1
Chapter Two:
Self-Portrait
11
Chapter Three:
The Early Washington, D.C. Bahá’í Community
31
Chapter Four:
Conversion
59
Chapter Five:
Race Amity
69
Chapter Six:
Pilgrimage
93
Chapter Seven:
Harlem Renaissance and Bahá’í Service
107
Chapter Eight
Estrangement and Rededication
161
vii
Chapter Nine:
Bahá’í Essays
223
Chapter Ten:
Philosophy of Democracy:
America, Race, and World Peace
241
Chapter Eleven:
Concluding Observations
267
Appendix:
Letters of Shoghi Effendi to Alain Locke
283
Bibliography
286
viii
Acknowledgements
Archival sources cited in this book were obtained primarily from
the Alain Locke Papers, Manuscript Division, Moorland-Spingarn
Research Center (MSRC), Howard University, provided courtesy of
Joellen ElBashir (Curator of Manuscripts), Dr. Ida Jones (Manuscript
Librarian) whose assistance is gratefully acknowledged; from the
National Bahá’í Archives (NBA), U.S. Bahá’í National Center, provided courtesy of Roger M. Dahl, archivist, whose assistance is also
gratefully acknowledged; from the Bahá’í Archives of Washington,
D.C., access provided courtesy of Ms. Anita Chapman, on behalf of the
Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of that city, whose kind assistance is
deeply appreciated; and from the International Bahá’í Archives at the
Bahá’í World Centre in Haifa, Israel, provided courtesy of the Research
Department on behalf of the Universal House of Justice, which has
given invaluable assistance not only for this project, but for the
research in my previous books, Symbol and Secret (1995) and Paradise
and Paradigm (1999), as well as for some of my other publications.
Funding for my research visit to Howard University in August 2001
was provided in large part by Anthony A. Lee on behalf of Kalimát
Press, which has also underwritten most of the research costs incurred
in requesting various documents from other archival collections. The
Michigan State University Library interlibrary-loan staff have enabled
me to access some relatively rare publications. I am also indebted to
Gayle Morrison, editor-in-chief of the Bahá’í Encyclopedia Project, for
her careful reading and critical comments on a previous version of this
manuscript, as well as to Dr. Robert Stockman, Research Director at the
Bahá’í National Center, for the detailed feedback that he has provided.
ix
x
acknowledgments
Any and all errors remain my own.
I owe a particular debt of gratitude to Dr. Seena Fazel, former
co-editor of the Bahá’í Studies Review (the premier academic Bahá’í
studies journal), for inviting me to contribute an original article on
Alain Locke for publication (2002). This was the genesis of my
research on Locke. Dr. Fazel later reprinted a slightly abridged revision
of that article in the multi-author volume that he and John Danesh coedited, Search for Values (2004). I also wish to thank Jay Parini, editor
of the American Writers series, for soliciting my biographical and literary essay, “Alain Locke” (2004) which presented, for the first time
in scholarship, a coherent view of Locke’s philosophy of democracy
and of his vision of America. Noteworthy for his interest as well, Dr.
Richard W. Thomas, professor of history at Michigan State University,
will anthologize the earlier Locke article in a volume on illustrious
African American Bahá’ís (forthcoming). All this professional interest
in Locke and the resulting publications have given this book project an
immense impetus in crystallizing my thinking on Locke and sharpening
my thesis.
Dr. Michael Rochester, former member of the National Spiritual
Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Canada and Professor Emeritus of
Mathematical Physics at Memorial University of Newfoundland,
sent me invaluable, hitherto-unknown information on Locke’s Bahá’í
“fireside” in Toronto in 1952—new data that attested Locke’s Bahá’í
commitment in the twilight of his life. And I owe a further debt of
gratitude to Dr. Leonard Harris, professor of philosophy at Purdue
University, and the leading authority on Alain Locke, for contributing
the Foreword to this book.
For all her support and encouragement, I am deeply grateful to my
loyal wife, Nahzy Abadi Buck who, among many other things, is currently my study partner in law school, in the adventure of our earning
“Juris Doctor” degrees together. (I hope to teach constitutional law and
to publish in the area of law and religion in the near future.) I thank
my two excellent sons, Takur and Taraz, for their taking pride in my
work and for reminding me that it is, in some ways, significant, even
to today’s youth. As my weight lifting partner, Takur has reinforced the
moral strength I have needed in completing this project—whenever
it was at its ebb and not moving forward—in addition to helping me
finally bench press 225 lbs. Taraz, from time to time, has helped trou-
acknowledgments
xi
bleshoot the stressful, technical difficulties I have encountered while
computing, and he continues to radiate much of the goodwill that keeps
me going in moments of discouragement.
Among the many other individuals who provided moral support,
I would like to recognize Mr. Kiser Barnes (member of the Universal
House of Justice), who referred to Alain Locke as “my personal hero”
at a private luncheon during my family’s Bahá’í pilgrimage to Israel in
January 2003; and to Dr. Robert Henderson, Secretary-General of the
National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, for
his encouragement. Thanks also to my friend and colleague, Dr. Vibert
White, Director of Public History, University of Central Florida; to my
brother, Carter Buck, who is always there for me; and to all those in
cyberspace and elsewhere who have provided virtual, moral support for
this project at a close distance. I also thank Anthony A. Lee of Kalimát
Press for editing this book. I might add that scholars have universally
acclaimed Studies in the Bábí and Bahá’í Religions—of which Alain
Locke: Faith and Philosophy is the eighteenth volume—as the premier
monograph series in academic Bahá’í studies. This is an enduring
legacy of Kalimát Press.
And to all my readers—especially those who see Alain Locke as
one of our greatest Americans—I want to personally thank each and
every one of you for reading this book, as each of us takes the moral
opportunity to help bridge the racial divide that continues to abridge
the quality of our American democracy. This book is dedicated to all
those who agree with ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s delight at the racial harmony
he observed at a Bahá’í gathering in the home of Andrew J. Dyer in
Washington, D.C. on 24 April 1912, when he exclaimed: “At the sight
of such genuine love and attraction between the white and the black
friends, I was so moved that I spoke with great love and likened this
union of different colored races to a string of gleaming pearls and
rubies.”
christopher buck
December 2004
Lansing, Michigan
Foreword
Secular philosophies are often compared and contrasted with sacred
doctrines. The comparison and contrast is especially revealing when
the author of a philosophy has a personal history within the culture
of the religion compatible with his philosophy. The psychology of a
philosopher is then easily described as the result of influences from his
religious background. The philosopher’s arguments and beliefs, consequently, may be considered an epiphenomenon of his religious heritage,
whether the philosopher was a member of the religion as a youth, later
disaffected, or joined in adulthood. However, when a secular philosophy is developed in a completely different culture from the sacred
doctrines with which the philosophy finds its closest association, then
assessing the philosopher’s psychology purely as an epiphenomenon of
his religious heritage is not revealing, or at least not so clearly revealing, of cultural influences.
We are warranted to pause and consider the arguments the author
offers for his philosophy that make it compatible with a sacred tradition rather than assume that it is an epiphenomenon of his religious
heritage. This is so especially when the philosopher has a personal
history significantly alien to the country, culture, and language community with which his philosophical treatises are so deeply associated.
What is revealed, at the very least, when we compare and contrast such
a philosopher’s secular views and associated sacred doctrines, is an
independence of mind. An independent mind is a prerequisite for developing a philosophy in ways antithetical to an author’s personal history
and religious heritage. Herein we find Alain Locke.
xiii
xiv
foreword
The same independence of mind that was required for Locke to
develop a philosophy deeply comparable with a sacred tradition antithetical to his personal history and religious heritage is the same sort of
independence of mind that makes it possible for any individual to join
the Bahá’í Faith. It is at least an independence of mind that is needed to
stand against racial and ethnic hatreds, vehement nationalisms masking
meta-narratives of racial purity and historical exceptionalism. Locke
evinces a cosmopolitanism.
Christopher Buck’s masterful uncovering of Locke’s affiliation
with the Bahá’í religion is arguably far more intriguing since he had
not been raised from birth as a member of the Bahá’í faith. It intriguing
because Locke maintains a relationship within the Bahá’í community
in the face of interminable odds, failing to follow standard sacred
protocols, while simultaneously developing his own philosophy. This
required, at the very least, a fierce independence of mind and a strong
determination to retain his Bahá’í affiliation.
Locke surmounts the cultural limitations of Christianity, African
American suspicions of foreign doctrines, America’s strict classifications of peoples into racial kinds, North American ethnocentricity
against any ideas originating in the Middle East, language phobias and
the elitism that places Arabic and Persian in a lower category of worthiness than English and Latin. Locke surmounts these barriers as the
very first steps needed to even enter into a dialogue with Bahá’í principles. He does so although he is a child of privilege: one who benefits
from the high-church status accorded Episcopalians, especially black
Episcopalians, his national status as an American, language privilege as
a native English speaker, his being a Harvard graduate, the first black
Rhodes scholar, and a doctor of philosophy of philosophies—master of
the “queen of all sciences.” Locke’s views on democracy offer a unique
way of thinking about cultural and religious diversity and its import for
democracy, a link that is not often seen because we often fail to note
that it takes an independence of mind to appreciate that there are radically different ways—in a democracy—of seeing. Locke walks away
from these stifling influences under his own power. He walks along
with the Bahá’ís.
Buck’s Faith and Philosophy consequently is a reading about a
marriage at a deeper level than the mere words “faith” and “philosophy.” Any single word is burdened with the limitation that it can point
to, refer to, and symbolize only a narrow range of meanings. The con-
foreword
xv
junction of two words such as “faith” and “philosophy” can suggest
only a narrow range of relationships between the sacred and the secular.
Even thinking that one sphere of thought may fertilize the other sphere
(and vice versa) can only suggest so many possible cross-fertilizations.
But the uncovering of Locke’s sojourn within the worlds of “faith” and
“philosophy,” especially because it is the world of the Bahá’í faith and
the world of a pragmatist philosophy, opens an unbounded set of meanings and relationships which independent minds can explore.
leonard harris, ph.d.
Professor, Department of Philosophy
Purdue University
ALAIN LOCKE IN ACADEMIC REGALIA, ca. 1918
Harvard University doctoral cap and gown with Oxford University
hood. Locke received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Harvard in
1918, the same year he embraced the Bahá’í Faith.
Photo by Addison N. Scurlock. Courtesy of the Moorland-Spingarn Research Center, Howard University. Also available in
Scurlock Studio Records, Archives Center, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Chapter One
Introduction
Alain Locke democratized American culture and paved the way for the
Civil Rights movement. During the Jim Crow era of American history,
when civil rights were white rights, Locke was the genius behind the
Harlem Renaissance, which David Levering Lewis aptly characterized as “Civil Rights by Copyright.”1 Locke edited the monumental
anthology, The New Negro (1925), hailed as the first national book of
African America.2 In so doing, Locke ingeniously used culture as a
strategy for ameliorating racism and for winning the respect of powerful white elites as potential agents for social and political transformation. Awakening the black masses to their noble African heritage and
instilling pride in unique black contributions to American life, Locke
may well be regarded as “the Martin Luther King of African American
culture.”3
Without Locke, there may not have been a Martin Luther King.
The New Negro movement, for which Locke was the chief architect
and spokesman, was singularly responsible for inculcating and cultivating the requisite group consciousness and solidarity necessary for
the mobilization of African Americans during the Civil Rights era. As
Martin Luther King was a man of faith, Alain Locke was also. Based
on newly discovered documentation of his conversion in 1918, we can
now say with certainty that Locke was member of the Bahá’í Faith for
over three decades.
1
2
alain locke: faith & philosophy
As the youngest independent world religion, the Bahá’í Faith
was clearly a leader in advocating racial harmony and full integration during the Jim Crow era. Through his service on several national
Bahá’í committees, Locke was instrumental in organizing a number of
“race amity” events. At various times, Locke lent his prestige to the
Bahá’í Faith: he publicly identified himself as a Bahá’í in a 1952 issue
of Ebony magazine, for example. By virtue of his being both a race
leader and a cultural pluralist, Locke is certainly the most important
Western Bahá’í to date in terms of his impact on American history and
thought. This book documents and demonstrates the synergy between
Locke’s profession as a philosopher and his confession as a Bahá’í,
which confirmed his commitment to racial harmony as a necessary
prerequisite to world peace.
In his foreword, Leonard Harris, who is the leading authority on
Locke today, provides an orientation to both the historical importance
of Alain Locke and his significance for America. The title of this book,
Alain Locke: Faith and Philosophy, addresses the synergy between
Locke’s Bahá’í-inspired universal value system and his philosophy of
democracy, expressive of his role as a cultural pluralist. Synergy may
be defined as a reciprocal intensification of intellectual or spiritual
energies, where the combined effect is greater than the sum of the two
forces working separately. My thesis of a synergy of consciousness
between the secular (philosophical) and sacred (spiritual) dimensions
of Locke’s genius posits a dynamic relationship between Locke’s religious values as a Bahá’í and his secular (and perhaps no less sacred)
philosophical commitment as a pragmatist. Harris has underscored the
importance of “uncovering” Alain Locke’s “sojourn within the worlds
of ‘faith’ and ‘philosophy,’ especially because it is the world of the
Bahá’í faith and the world of a pragmatist philosophy.” Cultural pluralism and Bahá’í principles are two primary energies that combined in
Locke to produce an intensification of his thought.
Harvard, Harlem, Haifa—philosophy, art, and religion—these are
keys to unlocking the paradoxes of the life and thought of Alain LeRoy
Locke. Harvard prepared Locke for distinction as the first black Rhodes
Scholar in 1907, and in 1918, awarded Locke his Ph.D. in Philosophy,
thereby insuring his position as chair of the Department of Philosophy
at Howard University from 1927 until his retirement in 1953. Harlem
became the Mecca for the Harlem Renaissance (1919-
1934),4 or
the “New Negro Movement,” of which Locke was orchestrator and
introduction
3
ideological genius, and which established him as an elder statesman
of African American art in later life.5 Haifa is the world center of
the Bahá’í Faith, the religion to which Locke converted in 1918, the
same year he received his doctorate from Harvard. Colleagues and
students thought him saintly, but not particularly religious. Outside of
his professional life, however, Locke was actively involved in Bahá’í
efforts to promote ideal race relations, which Bahá’ís termed “race
amity.” Whereas Harlem immortalized Locke as a “race man” through
the diplomacy of art, and whereas Harvard shaped Locke as a race
leader through the philosophy of cultural pluralism, Haifa—the Bahá’í
Faith—deeply influenced Locke as a champion of race unity. These
three dimensions—race interests, race relations, and race unity—for
which Harvard, Harlem, and Haifa are symbols, are facets of Locke’s
mind. Of these three approaches to understanding and appreciating
Locke, the least understood is Locke’s Bahá’í experience. This is the
last major piece of the puzzle needed to complete our picture of him.
A popular publication, The Black 100, ranks Alain Locke as the
36th most influential African American ever.6 “Arguably Locke was
the first black American,” writes Winston Napier, “seeking to challenge
European cultural imperialism through the formal articulation of a black
aesthetics.”7 Eric King Watts declares: “Only a few claims regarding
the Harlem Renaissance are uncontested: that The New Negro stands as
the ‘keystone,’ the ‘revolutionary’ advertisement, and the ‘first national
book’ of African America is one of them.”8 The publication of The New
Negro is Locke’s greatest claim to fame, although Locke’s contribution as a cultural pluralist has not yet been fully appreciated. A special
issue of The Survey Graphic9 on race (March 1925), for which Locke
served as guest editor, was entitled Harlem, Mecca of the New Negro,
which Locke subsequently recast as an anthology, The New Negro: An
Interpretation of Negro Life.10 A landmark in black literature, it was
an instant success. Locke contributed five essays: “Foreword,” “The
New Negro,” “Negro Youth Speaks,” “The Negro Spirituals,” and “The
Legacy of Ancestral Arts.”
In his new preface to the reissue of The New Negro anthology in
1968, Robert Hayden (a well known Bahá’í and America’s first black
poet-laureate11) echoes Locke’s vision of the Harlem Renaissance
as rooted in the transracial experience of America: “The Negro
Renaissance was clearly an expression of the Zeitgeist, and its writers
and artists were open to the same influences that their white counter-
4
alain locke: faith & philosophy
parts were. What differentiated the New Negroes from other American
intellectuals was their race consciousness, their group awareness, their
sense of sharing a common purpose.”12
Locke was a self-acknowledged “race man.” These were African
American leaders “who came of age during the era of scientific racism,
embraced nineteenth-century middle-class values, and maintained a
deep faith in the curative powers of liberalism.”13 At one level, this
may be a good description of Locke, but it is not an adequate one.
For beyond his work in promoting “cultural racialism,” Locke was an
important voice of America in race relations.
Again, this is only part of the picture. Locke’s distinguished career
as head of the Philosophy Department at Howard University (19211953) is matched by his prominent role in furthering adult education
for African Americans. Locke was the first African American president
of the American Association for Adult Education (AAAE), a predominantly white, professional society.14 He helped found the prestigious
Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion, which he chaired in
1945. Locke served on the editorial board of the American Scholar and
was a regular contributor to national journals and magazines.15
There is yet another dimension that deserves mention. Locke was
both a quintessential American idealist and an erstwhile world citizen.
His legacy as a cultural pluralist, even as an acknowledged “father of
multiculturalism,” renews his relevance for us today. A revalorization
of his perspective on race relations and democracy, on both a national
and a world scale, may allow Locke to speak to far more receptive
audiences today than in his own time. Happily, much of this work has
already been done. Recent scholarship on Locke has brought his work
“back to influential life.”16
Yet his identity and contributions as a Bahá’í remain relatively
obscure. The present study bridges a gap in scholarship on Locke by
examining the Bahá’í orbit of his life. In an effort not to overemphasize the importance of this dimension of Locke’s life, an honest and
even critical assessment of Locke’s relationship to Bahá’í principles
and to the Bahá’í community will serve to constrain any grandiose
claims on Locke as a Bahá’í. Indeed, as a public intellectual, Locke
was not openly a Bahá’í except at Bahá’í-sponsored events. And even
there, Locke’s Bahá’í identity was not always made clear. Moreover,
as Lawrence Durrell once said in another context, one could say that
Locke was one of the “devout, saddled with doubt.”
introduction
5
But he is no less valuable for that: for Locke is the most profound
and important western Bahá’í philosopher to date. Gayle Morrison
rightly calls him “the outstanding black intellectual”17 among the
early Bahá’ís. He knew his audiences were not ready to consider the
teachings of what would strike them as a non-Christian religion. Locke
himself might have explained his guarded approach as a “transvaluation” of Bahá’í principles and their promotion in what Bahá’ís commonly refer to as “indirect teaching” (what some faith-communities
today call “leavening”).
There is no formal discipline of Bahá’í philosophy as such.
Nonetheless, a close comparison of Locke’s Bahá’í essays with his
philosophical essays discloses some striking resonances, from shared
vocabulary to parallel concepts. This study will serve as a reflection
on race relations in America and on the Bahá’í notion of America’s
“destiny” in promoting “world democracy.” First examining his selfportrait (or “psychograph”), then the circumstances of his conversion
to the Bahá’í Faith in 1918, and his two subsequent pilgrimages to
Haifa in the Holy Land, this book will go on to chronicle Locke’s “race
amity” activities, review his Bahá’í essays and speeches, try to understand and make sense of his estrangement from and rededication to the
Bahá’í community, and provide a typology of Locke’s philosophy of
democracy, particularly as it applies to America and its world role.
Since religion was for him a private matter, the rediscovery of
Locke’s embrace of the Bahá’í Faith in 1918 solves some riddles, yet
it also poses questions. While lecturing on race relations at Howard
(1915-1916) and immersed in theories of value as a graduate student
at Harvard as an Austin Teaching Fellow (1916-1917), Locke was
attracted to the Bahá’í value system and its promotion of “race
amity”—resulting in his conversion. Locke’s faith as a Bahá’í and his
philosophy of value ultimately combined to produce, in Locke, his
role as a statesman of intergroup relations and diplomat among races,
as demonstrated in his multi-faceted, dimensional view of democracy.
For Locke, the function of religion in terms of values, and therefore the
function of the Bahá’í Faith, was “that of integrating the recognized
values of life and reinforcing them in the direction of a conservation or
stabilization of values.”18 Religion, furthermore, was “Ethical . . . and
Moral valuation cosmically enlarged through ideal presuppositions,
and reflectively conditioned attitude.”19
6
alain locke: faith & philosophy
The current academic literature on Locke gives only passing
mention to his worldview as a Bahá’í or ignores it altogether. Within
the Bahá’í context as well, with one exception,20 there is no literature
on Locke. By further developing Mason’s initial work on Locke’s
Bahá’í identity and its presumed interaction with his thinking as a philosopher,21 this study hopes to supply this missing dimension of Locke
that has been glossed over in the literature. Certainly, Locke himself
would have acknowledged the impact of his Bahá’í experience on his
life in general and probably on his philosophy in particular. As will be
shown, the converse holds true as well, in that much of Locke’s formal
philosophical thinking informed his Bahá’í perspective.
This book will complement prior scholarship by taking a closer
look at the Bahá’í dimension of Locke’s life and thought. It will also
explore how the synergy between Locke’s Bahá’í essays and philosophical essays permit one to speak of an inchoate “Bahá’í philosophy”
in his work. This study also argues that Locke had a fluid hierarchy of
values—loyalty, tolerance, reciprocity, cultural relativism, and pluralism—and that this hierarchy represents a progression and application
of quintessential Bahá’í ideals. Locke’s distinction as a “Bahá’í philosopher” may therefore be justified on ideological as well as historical
grounds. To use his own words, Locke translated Bahá’í ideals “into
more secular terms” so that “a greater practical range will be opened
up for the application and final vindication of the Bahá’í principles” in
order to achieve “a positive multiplication of spiritual power.”22
Notes
1. David Levering Lewis, When Harlem Was in Vogue (New York: Penguin,
1998) p. xxviii.
2. “Perhaps our first national book.” Houston A. Baker, Jr., Modernism and
the Harlem Renaissance (University of Chicago Press, 1987), cited (but with no
page ref.) by Mark Helbling, The Harlem Renaissance: The One and the Many
(Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999) p. 46.
3. Christopher Buck, “Alain Locke,” in American Writers: A Collection of
Literary Biographies, Supplement XIV, edited by Jay Parini. (Farmington Hills,
MI: Scribner’s Reference/The Gale Group, 2004) pp. 195-219. See also Buck,
“Alain Locke and Cultural Pluralism” in Search for Values: Ethics in Baha’i
Thought. Studies in the Bábí and Bahá’í Religions, Vol. 16, edited by Seena Fazel
and John Danesh (Los Angeles: Kalimat Press, 2004) pp. 94-158; and Buck,
“Alain Locke: Bahá’í Philosopher,” Baha’i Studies Review, Vol. 10 (2001/2002)
pp. 7-49.
introduction
7
4. Although dates for the Harlem Renaissance rarely agree, Lewis writes: “From
its authentic beginnings in 1919, with soldiers returning from the Great War, to
its sputtering end in 1934, with the Great Depression deaths of two principals, the
racial goals of the Harlem Renaissance remained constant.” (Lewis, When Harlem
Was in Vogue, p. xxviii.) The 1935 Harlem race riots marked the definitive end of
the Harlem Renaissance by exposing its failure to effect any real social and economic change.
5. From youth, Locke was enamored of classical and European culture. Although
he wrote poetry which he privately circulated, and he once attempted a novel,
Locke remained a frustrated artist, but a brilliant promoter of African American
(and African) art. See Jeffrey Conrad Stewart, “A Biography of Alain Locke:
Philosopher of the Harlem Renaissance, 1886-1930,” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale
University, 1979) p. 59.
6. Columbus Salley, The Black 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential AfricanAmericans, Past and Present, Revised and updated (Secaucus, NJ: Citadel Press,
1999 [1993]) p. 137.
7. Winston Napier, “Affirming Critical Conceptualism: Harlem Renaissance
Aesthetics and the Formation of Alain Locke’s Social Philosophy,” The
Massachusetts Review, Vol. 39, no.1 (Spring 1998) p. 94.
8. Eric King Watts, “African American Ethos and Hermeneutical Rhetoric: An
Exploration of Alain Locke’s The New Negro.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol.
88, no.1 (February 2002) pp. 19-32, citing Houston Baker, Jr., Modernism and the
Harlem Renaissance (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987) p. 85.
9. Alain Locke, “Harlem: Mecca of the New Negro.” Survey Graphic. Vol. 6, no.
6 (March 1925). Online at http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/harlem/contents.html.
10. Alain Locke, ed., The New Negro (New York: Albert and Charles Boni, Inc.,
1925). Reprinted, with a new preface by Robert Hayden (New York: Atheneum,
1969).
11. See Christopher Buck, “Robert Hayden” in Oxford Encyclopedia of American
Literature, edited by Jay Parini (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004) Vol. 2,
pp. 177-81.
12. Hayden, “Preface” for The New Negro.
13. Jonathan Scott Holloway, Confronting the Veil: Abram Harris, Jr., E. Franklin
Frazier, and Ralph Bunche, 1919-1941 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press, 2002) p. 9.
14. Leonard Harris, “Alain Leroy Locke” in American National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) Vol. 13, pp. 796-98; Rudolph A. Cain, “Alain
Leroy Locke: Crusader and Advocate for the Education of African American
Adults,” Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 64, no. 1 (1995) p. 87; Michael R.
Winston, “Locke, Alain LeRoy,” in Rayford W. Logan and Michael R. Winston,
eds., Dictionary of American Negro Biography (New York and London: W.
W. Norton, 1982) p. 403. See also Tommy Lee Lott, “Alain LeRoy Locke” in
Michael P. Kelly, ed., Encyclopedia of Aesthetics (Oxford University Press, 1998)
pp. 160-65; and Sandra L. Quinn-Musgrove, “Lost in Blackness: Alain LeRoy
Locke,” Ethnic Forum, Vol. 12, no. 2 (1992) pp. 48-68. See also Jeffrey Stewart,
“A Biography of Alain Locke,”abstracted in Dissertation Abstracts International,
Vol. 42, no. 4 (1981) pp. 1696-97-A.
15. Winston, “Locke, Alain LeRoy,” p. 403.
8
alain locke: faith & philosophy
16. Judith Green, “Cosmopolitan Unity Amidst Valued Diversity: Alain Locke’s
Vision of Deeply Democratic Transformation,” in Deep Democracy: Community,
Diversity, and Transformation (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999) p. 132.
17. Gayle Morrison, To Move the World: Louis G. Gregory and the Advancement
of Racial Unity in America (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1982) p. 4,
note.
18. Alain Locke, The Problem of Classification in the Theory of Values (Ph.D.
dissertation: Harvard University, 1917) p. 233.
19. Ibid., p. “233 a” (evidently a later insert, being a chart entitled, “Religious
Values.”
20. Mason, “Alain Locke’s Social Philosophy,” World Order, Vol. 13, no. 2
(1979) pp. 25-34.
21. Ernest Mason, “Alain Locke’s Social Philosophy.” See also Mason, “Alain
Locke on Race and Race Relations,” Phylon Vol. 40, no. 4 (1979) pp. 342-50. Cf.
Yvonne Ochillo, “The Race-Consciousness of Alain Locke,” Phylon, Vol. 47, no.
3 (1986) pp. 173-81.
22. Alain Locke, “Unity through Diversity: A Bahá’í Principle,” in The Bahá’í
World: A Biennial International Record, Volume IV, 1930-1932 (Wilmette: Bahá’í
Publishing Trust, 1933) pp. 372-74. Reprint (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust,
1980). Reprinted again in Locke, The Philosophy of Alain Locke, ed. by Leonard
Harris (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989) pp. 133-38 [above quote from
p. 137]. Harris’ reference on p. 133 n. should be emended to read, “Volume IV,
1930-1932” (not “V, 1932-1934”).
ALAIN LOCKE
Chapter Two
Self-Portrait
In 1935, at the age of fifty, Locke wrote in his autobiographical “psychograph”1: “I should like to claim as life-motto the good Greek principle,— ‘Nothing in excess,’ but I have probably worn instead as the
badge of circumstance,—‘All things with a reservation.’ “2
While a Bahá’í for most of his adult life, Locke had some reservations about ways in which the Bahá’í Faith was understood and
applied by some of his fellow Bahá’ís. His reservations may contribute
to a richer understanding of Bahá’í principles as he interpreted them
through his unique perspective as a race leader as well as a “cultural
cosmopolitan” steeped in the “philosophy of value,” allied with “cultural pluralism and value relativism.”3 Cultural pluralism is a commitment that “accords basic respect and recognition to culturally diverse
groups.”4 It differs from cultural diversity, which is simply a social fact.
This study will thus situate Locke within the context of those intellectual formations—value theory, pragmatism, Boasian anthropology,
cultural pluralism, and Bahá’í principles—that deeply influenced him.
Early life: An African American (Negro) child of Northern Reconstruction
with an enlightened upbringing, Locke was the only son of Pliny
Ishmael Locke (1850-1892) and Mary (Hawkins) Locke, who had been
engaged for sixteen years before they married.5 Alain LeRoy Locke
was born on 13 September 1885 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, not in
11
12
alain locke: faith & philosophy
1886, as commonly thought.6 For reasons that have eluded historians,
Locke always represented his year of birth as 1886.7 At birth, though
his name was recorded as “Arthur,” his parents may have named him
“Alan.” In the Alain Locke Papers, there is a note in Locke’s handwriting that reads:
Alain Leroy Locke—Alan registered as Arthur (white) Phila Vital Statistics
owing prejudice of Quaker physician Isaac Smedley to answering question of
race. [B]orn 13 So. 19th Street, Philadelphia, Pa. Sunday between 10 and 11
A.M. September 13, 1885. Called Roy as a child[,] Alain from 16 on. [illegible] First born son. 2nd brother born 1889—lived 2 months[,] named Arthur
first selected for me.8
A city hall note by the chief clerk of the Philadelphia Department
of Public Health and Charities (1909?) confirms 1885 as the year of
his birth.9 Thus young Roy became “Alan” from the age of sixteen, but
with the French spelling, “Alain” (close to the American pronunciation
of “Allen”), and “Roy” was transposed as the middle name “LeRoy.”
Although, in later years, he typically signed his middle name as
“Leroy,” on his Howard University letterhead “LeRoy” was preferred,
at least in the earlier years.10 He also signed his middle name “LeRoy”
when he first taught at Howard.11 As to why he represented his year
of birth as 1886 rather than 1885, Locke may have wanted to avoid
the embarrassment of having future biographers discover that he was
registered as white on his birth certificate.
In his psychograph, Locke reflects on his childhood: “Philadelphia,
with her birthright of provincialism flavoured by urbanity and her petty
bourgeois psyche with the Tory slant, at the start set the key of paradox;
circumstance compounded it by decreeing me as a Negro a dubious and
doubting sort of American and by reason of racial inheritance making
me more of a pagan than a Puritan, more of a humanist than a pragmatist.”12 While Locke himself did not explain what he meant by the
“key of paradox,” it appears to be a reference to twists of fate and to
tensions between his cultural nationalism and integrationist universalism—perhaps never fully resolved. In Philadelphia, Locke led a privileged (relative to the lives of the vast majority of other black Americans
at the turn of the twentieth century) and somewhat sheltered life.13 A
biographer notes that Locke was a “child of privilege in a black household whose ancestors on both sides had been free before 1865.”14
Locke’s family background shows how nature and nurture com-
self-portrait
13
bined to provide him with rare educational advantages. Locke’s paternal grandfather, Ishmael Locke (1820-1852), attended Cambridge
University with support from the Society of Friends. Ishmael was
employed as a teacher in Salem, New Jersey, and over four years
established schools in Liberia. There he met and married Alain Locke’s
paternal grandmother Sarah Shorter Hawkins, who was from Kentucky.
Ishmael Locke later served as principal of the Institute for Colored
Youth in Philadelphia, following his tenure as headmaster of a school
in Providence, Rhode Island.15
Locke’s father, Pliny Ishmael Locke, married Locke’s mother on
20 August 1879. His mother Mathilda Saunders, born in Liberia, had
a German father. Pliny (called “Dick”) graduated from the Institute in
1867, and taught mathematics there for two years, after which he taught
freedmen in North Carolina during the early years of Reconstruction.
He also held a position as an accountant in the Freedman’s Bureau
and the Freedman’s Bank and was private secretary to General O. O.
Howard. He was accepted to the Howard University Law Department
(later called the School of Law), and graduated in 1874, one of only
seven graduates at the time.16 That year, Pliny returned to Philadelphia
as a clerk in the United States Post Office. He died in 1892,17 of “consumption and aftermath of African fear [fever?].”18
Locke’s mother, Mary Jane Hawkins, was from a family of free
blacks, among whom were soldiers (who had fought with valor during
the Civil War) and missionaries to Africa under the Society of Friends.
Mary Hawkins was a descendant of Charles Shorter, a free Negro who
had fought in the War of 1812.19 She was educated at the Institute for
Colored Youth in Philadelphia. Mary Locke supported herself and her
family as a teacher in Camden and Camden County. She was a disciple
of the humanist and rabbi Felix Adler (d. 1933), who believed that all
religions had a common ethical basis. She joined the Society for Ethical
Culture, which Adler founded in 1876. It was liberal on racial matters.
Adler proposed the First Universal Races Congress held in 1911, to
the American section of which he and W. E. B. Du Bois were elected
co-secretaries.20 Adler invited Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. Du
Bois to lecture at the Society, and encouraged black students to enroll
in his own school.21 His mother’s role as both a teacher and a humanist likely left its imprint on Locke, who described himself as “more of
a humanist than a pragmatist.”22 Locke had an Episcopal upbringing,
and during his youth he was enamored of Greek philosophy.23 Later
14
alain locke: faith & philosophy
he found, as Leonard Harris puts it, a “spiritual home” in the Bahá’í
Faith.24
Stricken at 3:10 p.m. with “Apoplexy,” Mary Locke died at 8:15
p.m. on 23 April 1922,25 “at 71, when I was thirty-six.”26 Locke would
always remember her death as “the Sunday after Easter,” and faithfully
spoke of it for years after.27 Locke described his mother as “Mulatto”
and 1/8 English, with “medium brown” skin and “Medium hair soft,”
her nose “slightly aquiline.”28
In a letter dated 28 June 1922 to Agnes Parsons, Locke disclosed
that his mother had been favorably disposed to the Bahá’í Faith:
“Mother’s feeling toward the Cause [the Bahá’í Faith], and the friends
[Bahá’ís] who exemplify it, was unusually receptive and cordial for one
who had reached conservative years,—it was her wish that I identify
myself more closely with it.” At the end of the letter, Locke speaks of
the Bahá’í Faith as “this movement for human brotherhood.”29 To the
best of his ability—given the extraordinary demands placed upon him
as an academic, lecturer, cultural critic, and educator—Locke lived up
to his mother’s wish over the next three decades.
University Education: Locke had a black middle-class upbringing, but
with an unusual education. In his infancy, Locke was stricken with
rheumatic fever, which permanently damaged his heart (an inhibitive factor in Locke’s later activities). After this episode, Locke dealt
with his “rheumatic heart” by seeking “compensatory satisfactions”
in books, piano, and violin.30 Only six years old when his father died,
Locke’s mother sent him to one of the Ethical Culture schools, which
was a pioneering, experimental program of Froebelian pedagogy (after
Friedrich Froebel [d. 1852], who opened the first kindergarten). By the
time he enrolled in Central High School of Philadelphia (1898-1902),
Locke was already an accomplished pianist and violinist. From 1902
to 1904, Locke attended the Philadelphia School of Pedagogy.31 Locke
graduated second in his class in 1904. That year, Locke entered Harvard
as an honor student. He was one of only a few African American undergraduates.
As a philosophy major, Locke studied under George Herbert
Palmer, Josiah Royce, Hugo Münsterberg, and Ralph Barton Perry.32
Remarkably, Locke completed his four-year program in only three
years. During this time, he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. In 1907,
Locke won the Bowdoin Prize—Harvard’s most prestigious academic
self-portrait
15
award—for his essay, “The Literary Heritage of Tennyson.”33 Locke
also passed qualifying examinations in Latin, Greek, and mathematics for the Rhodes Scholarship (the oldest international fellowships),
which had just been established in 1902.34 In his Rhodes Scholarship
interview, Locke stated what one of his objectives for studying abroad
was: “Besides the further education, I want to see the race problem
from the outside. I don’t want to run away from it, but I do want to
see it in perspective.”35 At last, Locke made history and headlines in
May 1907 as America’s first—and last, until 1960—African American
Rhodes Scholar. He graduated magna cum laude (“with great honor”)
with his bachelor’s degree in philosophy that same year.36 Rejected by
five Oxford colleges, Locke was finally admitted to Hertford College.
On his scholarship, Locke studied at Oxford from 1907 to 1910. 37
As a Harvard senior in 1905, Locke met Horace Kallen, a Germanborn Jew who was a graduate teaching assistant in a course on Greek
philosophy—taught by George Santayana—in which Locke had
enrolled.38 This was the beginning of an association that lasted for
many years. Kallen recorded some personal observations about Locke
as a young man. Locke was “very sensitive, very easily hurt.” Recalling
a conversation at Harvard, Kallen writes that Locke would strenuously
insist that: “I am a human being,” that, “We are all alike Americans,”
and that his “color ought not to make any difference.”39 This is corroborated by a letter Locke wrote to his mother, Mary Locke, shortly
after having been awarded his Rhodes Scholarship, in which he insists:
“I am not a race problem. I am Alain LeRoy Locke.”40 Unfortunately,
in that era color made all the difference. The prevailing social reality
was that Locke’s self-image was really a wish-image. Two years later,
on a Sheldon traveling fellowship, Kallen ended up at Oxford at the
same time as Locke.
At Oxford, recommencing their earlier conversation, Locke asked
Kallen, “[W]hat difference does the difference [of race] make?” “In
arguing out those questions,” Kallen recounts, “the phrase ‘cultural
pluralism’ was born.”41 While the term itself was thus coined by
Kallen in this historic conversation with Locke,42 it was really Locke
who developed the concept into a full-blown philosophical framework
for the melioration of African Americans. Although distancing himself
from Kallen’s purist and separatist conception of it, Locke was part of
the cultural pluralist movement that flourished between the 1920s and
the 1940s.
16
alain locke: faith & philosophy
Kallen describes a racial incident concerning a Thanksgiving Day
dinner hosted at the American Club at Oxford. Locke was not invited,
because of the “gentlemen from Dixie who could not possibly associate
with Negroes.”43 Elsewhere, Kallen is more blunt: “[W]e had a race
problem because the Rhodes Scholars from the South were bastards.
So they had a Thanksgiving dinner which I refused to attend because
they refused to have Locke.”44 In fact, even before they left for Oxford,
these Southern Rhodes Scholars had “formally appealed to the Rhodes
trustees to overturn Locke’s award”45—but to no avail. “What got
Kallen particularly upset, however,” according to Louis Menand, “was
the insult to Harvard.”46
In support of this, Menand cites a letter to Harvard English professor Barrett Wendell (1855-1921), in which Kallen speaks of overcoming his admitted aversion to blacks through his loyalty to Harvard and
by virtue of his personal respect for Locke as well. After having invited
Locke to tea, as his guest, in lieu of the Thanksgiving dinner, Kallen
writes that, “it is personally repugnant to me to eat with him . . . but
then, Locke is a Harvard man and as such he has a definite claim on
me.”47 The irony is that Kallen harbored the very same prejudices as
the Southern Rhodes Scholars did, but not to the same degree. “As you
know, I have neither respect nor liking for his race,” Kallen writes,
“—but individually they have to be taken, each on his own merits
and value, and if ever a Negro was worthy, this boy is.”48 Locke was
deeply wounded by the Thanksgiving snub: “Now, the impact of that
kind of experience left scars,” remarks Kallen.49 And it wasn’t just
the prejudice of his fellow American peers that so disaffected Locke,
for he was almost as critical of British condescension as he was of
American racism. In 1909, Locke published a critique of Oxford
(“Oxford Contrasts”50), that was particularly critical of its aristocratic
pretensions.51
He found social acceptance elsewhere. Locke personally founded
the “Oxford Cosmopolitan Club,” which attracted a number of international students (British “colonials”). According to Posnock, “This
group soon became Locke’s intimate circle.”52 For years to come,
Locke nurtured these contacts through extensive correspondence.
While “socially Anglophile,” as he says in his psychograph, Locke
found himself increasingly drawn to his sense of “race loyalty.”53 As
evidence of this, Locke helped establish the African Union Society
and served as its secretary. Its constitution stated the society’s purpose
ALAIN LOCKE WITH THE OXFORD COSMOPOLITAN CLUB
comprised mainly of Oxford University students from Norway, Russia, Scotland, South Africa, and India.
Courtesy of the Moorland-Spingarn Research Center, Howard University
18
alain locke: faith & philosophy
was to cultivate “thought and social intercourse between its members
as prospective leaders of the African Race.”54 Indeed, it was at
Oxford that a crucial transformation took place: At entrance, Locke
saw himself as a cosmopolitan. On exit, Locke resolved to be a race
leader.55 Hence, in his psychograph, Locke describes himself as “a
cultural cosmopolitan, but perforce an advocate of cultural racialism as
a defensive countermove for the American Negro.”56 In a letter to his
mother written while he was at Oxford, Locke reflected: “Oxford is a
training-school for the governing classes, and has taught your son its
lesson.”57 The Oxford experience steeled Locke’s sense of destiny as a
non-chauvinistic “advocate of cultural racialism.”58
So acutely did the Thanksgiving Day dinner incident traumatize
Locke that he left Oxford without taking a degree. He spent the next
academic year studying Kant at the University of Berlin and touring
Eastern Europe. Locke mentions in his psychograph that, while at
Oxford, he was “but dimly aware of the new realism of the Austrian
philosophy of value.” During his study at the University of Berlin in
1910-1911, Locke became conversant with the “Austrian school” of
anthropology, also known as philosophical anthropology, under the
tutelage of Franz Brentano, Alexius von Meinong, Christian Freiherr
von Ehrenfels, Paul Natorp, and others.
In an undated letter to Booker T. Washington, Locke announced
his intention of “fulfilling some of the preliminary qualifications for a
German doctorate should time and money permit.”59 In his reply of 11
January 1911, Washington ended by saying, “I shall follow your work
with a great deal of interest, and hope for you the greatest success.”60
To have received such interest from America’s foremost “race man”
of the day must have been a source of great encouragement to Locke.
They ended up seeing each other a year later in Locke’s home town,
Philadelphia, and traveling together two months later in Florida.61
Evidently, they had first met at the Hotel Manhattan in New York on
18 April 1910.62 In a “Biographical Memo,” Locke states: “Returning
home in 1911, I spent six months traveling in the South,—my first
close-range view of the race problem, and there acquired my life-long
avocational interest in encouraging and interpreting the artistic and
cultural expression of Negro life, for I became deeply convinced of its
efficacy as an internal instrument of group integration and morale and
as an external weapon of recognition and prestige.”63
Locke preferred Europe to America. In Paris, he studied under
self-portrait
19
Bergson and others. There were moments when he resolved never to
return to the United States. Reluctantly, he did so in 1911. In 1912, with
the help of Booker T. Washington, Locke was hired onto the faculty of
Howard University as an assistant professor of English.64 If this had
not happened, Washington had also extended an invitation to Locke to
teach at Tuskegee Institute.65
The Emergence of Locke the Philosopher: From his academic education, Locke emerged as a philosopher in his own right. In the 1916-1917
academic year, Locke took a sabbatical from Howard University to take
a position as an Austin Teaching Fellow at Harvard. Evidently, Locke
wrote his doctoral dissertation during that academic year, although the
basis for his dissertation can be traced to Locke’s work at Oxford. Even
prior to this, probably during his undergraduate years at Harvard, it was
Harvard professor of philosophy Josiah Royce who originally inspired
Locke’s interest in the philosophy of value.66
During his graduate experience at Harvard, Locke explored the
ideas of such great thinkers as Hugo Münsterberg and von Ehrenfels,
as well as Kant and Hegel.67 In his psychograph, Locke writes:
“Verily paradox has followed me the rest of my days: at Harvard [as
an undergraduate], clinging to the genteel tradition of Palmer, Royce
and Münsterberg, yet attracted by the disillusion of Santayana and
the radical protest of James: again I returned [as a graduate student]
to work under Royce but was destined to take my doctorate in value
theory under Perry.”68 Here, Locke discloses important links in his
intellectual pedigree, which included the value theorists of Europe and
the pragmatists of America.69 Ralph Barton Perry was Locke’s Ph.D.
supervisor.
The essence of Locke’s philosophy is captured in the first sentence
of his 1935 essay, “Values and Imperatives,” which states: “All philosophies, it seems to me, are in ultimate derivation philosophies of life
and not of abstract, disembodied ‘objective’ reality; products of time,
place and situation, and thus systems of timed history rather than timeless eternity.”70 Anchoring philosophy in life, Locke studied the determinative role of values in the human experience. Locke’s ideal-types
were what he called “value-types.” Locke’s “psychology of valuetypes” is based on his 263-page Harvard dissertation, The Problem of
Classification in the Theory of Values.71 This was an extension of an
earlier essay he had written at Oxford.
20
alain locke: faith & philosophy
Indeed, the underlying basis for Locke’s philosophy was value
theory. Value theory constituted the “pivot of Locke’s thinking,” which
was “his belief that human values are central in determining the course
of social life.”72 Briefly, Locke’s philosophy consists of values referenced to feelings at the individual level, then projected as cultural
norms at the societal level. Both among and within societies, conflicts
arise. These culture wars within a society and value-conflicts between
societies can be understood if they are systematically compared, and
their differences can be negotiated if they are conceptually “translated.”
Some of these differences can be resolved once they are appreciated as
functional equivalents. While the form of norms may differ, their function may be similar. In combining form and function, Locke provided
a conceptual paradigm for cultural interpretation. This is the epistemological foundation for Locke’s cultural pluralism.
To oversimplify, Locke’s philosophical project is to ground philosophy in values, to anchor values in human experience (“feelings”),
and to classify or correlate values with the complementary dimensions
of human life. In “The Criteria of Value-Types,” Locke justifies his
systematization on the grounds that “value definition and value classification should be worked out upon the basis of some principle and
method of analysis to commensurable terms.”73 Values are not “products of logical arrangement or definition.”74 Rather, “values cohere in
natural groups and psychological kinds, which must be regarded as the
underlying basis for any system of classification to which values can
legitimately be subjected.”75
In his dissertation, Locke states: “We have therefore taken
values classed, rather roughly and tentatively, as Hedonic, Economic,
Aesthetic, Ethical and Moral, Religious, and Logical, aiming to discover in terms of the generic distinctions of a value-psychology their
type-unity, character, and specific differentiae with respect to other
types.”76 In “Values and Imperatives,” however, Locke reduces his taxonomy to four types of values, which I will represent with the acronym,
REAL: (1) Religious; (2) Ethical/Moral; (3) Aesthetic/Artistic; (4)
Logical/Scientific. Associated with these “value-types” are “ValueFeelings and Value-Presuppositions,” which evidently correspond with
“Modal Quality” and “Value-Predicates” in the chart opposite:
To simplify Locke’s system, religion and ethics, science and art,
represent the four primary “value provinces.” These are both the battlefields of cultural conflicts and the potential common ground of mutual
21
Value
Type
Satisfaction
Joy
(Harris, The Philosophy of Alain Locke, p. 43)
Beautiful—Ugly
Fine—Unsatisfactory
Disgust
Distress
Temptation
Crime
Repose or Equilibrium
(1) Contemplation
Aesthetic
(2) Creativity
Artistic
Conscience
Right
Sin
Damnation
Value
Polarity
Contradiction
Error
Good—Bad
Right—Wrong
Tension—(Conflict-Choice)
(1) Conscience
Ethical
(2) Dduty
Moral
Holiness
Salvation
Value
Polarity
Acceptance orAgreement—(Curiosity—Intellectual Satisfaction)
(1) Thought
Logical
Correct—Incorrect
Consistency
(2) Experience
Scientific
True—False
Certainty
Holy—Unholy
Good—Evil
ValuePredicates
(1) Inner Ecstasy
Religious
(2) Religious Zeal
Exaltation—(Awe-Worship)
Modal
Quality
Locke’s Typology of Values
22
alain locke: faith & philosophy
respect through value transposition. The beauty and utility of Locke’s
paradigm is that it provides a key for decoding and drawing functional equivalences among the diversity of value systems that are part
and parcel of cultures throughout history. To accomplish this, Locke
favored a “historical-comparative approach” as “the only proper . . .
way of understanding values, including particularly those of one’s own
culture and way of life.”78
In 1918, Locke was awarded his Ph.D. in philosophy from Harvard.
That same year, Locke became a Bahá’í. Locke was “perhaps the most
deeply and exquisitely educated African American of his generation.”79
This assessment is brought into even sharper relief in the sobering
knowledge that, as late as 1935—a full generation after Locke’s own
generation—three-fourths of all blacks had not gone beyond a fourthgrade education.80 His “exquisite” education had prepared Locke for
his greatest historical role, which was—to cite his psychograph—to
become “a philosophical mid-wife to a generation of younger Negro
poets, writers, artists.”81
Harvard, Locke as Philosopher: Locke was deeply influenced by
pragmatism, a contemporary philosophical movement that countered
both idealism and realism. The word “pragmatism” actually dates
back to Kant, who opposed it to egoism. But the American usage of
it originated with Charles S. Peirce. Pragmatism correlates truth and
experience, self and world. “Pragmatism is an account of the way
people think,” according to Menand, “the way they come up with
ideas, form beliefs, and reach decisions.”82 Experience is real. It is no
mere mental phenomenon. It is a dynamic interaction between self and
world. Knowledge derives from experience. Truth is transformed by
experience.
Pragmatism is process. It advocates a method. Ideas are relative
to time and place. The truth of a proposition depends on its practical
value, not on any intrinsic meaning. As with the scientific method,
knowledge can be tested. Ideas must be tested by experience. This has
profound cultural implications. Truth is judged by its consequences. It
cannot be divorced from the practical and moral. America, it follows,
is accountable to itself.
The originators of pragmatism include Charles Sanders Peirce (d.
1914), who claimed to have “invented” pragmatism and expounded its
theory of meaning; William James (d. 1910) who developed pragma-
self-portrait
23
tism’s theory of truth; and John Dewey (d. 1952), who contributed his
notion of “instrumentalism” to the movement.83 W. E. B. Du Bois had
been a student of James.84 Locke had a passion for James,85 although
he rejected his radical empiricism. Both Du Bois and Locke read
James’s Oxford lectures, A Pluralistic Universe (1909), as a philosophical allegory for making a “vital connection between pluralism and
democracy.”86
Pragmatists put a premium on experience. They sought to test the
truth of ideas in actual experience as a “pragmatic” indicator. They
also felt that their philosophical ideas had ethical and political consequences.87 Moreover, Dewey felt that pragmatism provided a philosophical basis for democracy, which he viewed as an ethical principle
that extended beyond politics to economics and social interactions as
well.88 Despite his influences, Locke pursued an independent course
by deforming the master code of symbols that dominated the world of
American philosophy and reforming them by means of what Houston
Baker, Jr., called a radical marronage89 or racial reorientation, in order
that philosophy might have something meaningful to say about race
relations.
Pragmatism gave birth to cultural pluralism, which Locke helped
originate, develop, and promulgate with almost religious zeal. During
the 1920s, the question as to what constitutes American identity was “a
national preoccupation.”90 Posnock states that “pragmatism’s answer”
was “cultural pluralism,” as opposed to the coercions of assimilation—
the pressure to conform—in the American paradigm of the “melting
pot.”91 Cultural pluralism (known now as multiculturalism) was
Locke’s philosophical faith—“a new Americanism” as he called it.92
Compensating for liberalism’s fixation on freedom, cultural pluralism
provides a philosophical foundation for unity in diversity by extending
the idea of democracy beyond individuals and individual rights to the
equal recognition of cultural, racial, and other group rights.
Locke’s philosophy is really a fusion of pluralism and relativism,
as seen in the synonyms he uses for it. Cultural pluralism is variously referred to in Locke’s writings as “cultural relativism,” “critical
relativism,” and “value relativism.”93 In a speech entitled, “Cultural
Relativism” (1930),94 Locke developed his own notion of what cultural
relativism means and the purpose behind it. He begins his speech by
making a vital connection between philosophy and human values:
24
alain locke: faith & philosophy
I feel it quite an opportunity to read before you this paper on cultural relativism. As a topic it is far off the traditional middle of the philosophers’ road . . .
In my humble judgment the new highway of philosophy will proceed
in the direction of the philosophy of society in general, and a philosophy of
culture in particular. Social values,—today treated either so formalistically or
else so unphilosophically, are the crux of this issue. . . . In some respects the
greatest intellectual service remaining to be done is to establish from some
source a criterion of culture—a world scale of social values. And whatever
question [?] furnishes that will be the true orient of the contemporary mind.
One of the chief factors in the making of a new world must be the remaking of
our minds, not in the sense of new content, but in the sense of new attitudes,
new and practical criteria of basic human values.95 . . .
Occasionally a glimpse of objective relativity in the flash wisdom of an
aphorism—Man is one, civilizations are many— the scientist has a country,
but science has no country . . .96
Later in the speech, Locke states that progressive “thinkers of constructive purpose” are all “willing to judge social values by the standard of
equivalence” and are also “willing to judge social ideals and customs
on a functional basis.”
Locke then proceeds to his own definition of cultural relativism:
I am anxious at this point to define this cultural relativism more closely;
lest it be confused on the one hand with vague sentimental cosmopolitanism
or on the other with exotic neutrality. It is not cultural neutrality, though it
does involve the interpretation of culture and all cultural values on the basis
of functional constants and relatively equivalent variants. Such an attitude
should bring us in view of basic common denominators which would scientifically correlate our values for truer comparison and scaling. It is a relativism that should be possible without losing belief in or loyalty to the common
symbols and mind-sets of a particular culture. For, I take it, the scientific view,
far from minimizing—actually reinforces the vital functional importance of
these loyalties and their social patterns serving to unify and focus our group
life. But such loyalties and attachments are compatible if founded on the
more objective view that my patriotism and your patriotism, my sectarianisms
and yours, though differing and often opposing one another, are functionally
equivalent—and objectively identical.97
Locke’s use of technical terms is not, however, always consistent.
As Winston Napier points out, Locke’s “semantic inconsistency clouds
his argument.”98 Strictly speaking, pluralism is a distinctive concept,
while relativism is a normative one.99 As Mason observes: “It is precisely the separation between pluralism and relativism that explains
much of America’s intolerance. For a plurality of ethnic groups simply
self-portrait
25
cannot exist within a society that refuses to recognize the relative and
functional nature of values and institutions.”100
Locke’s critique of democracy centers around democracy’s need
to develop a relativistic perspective to fit its pluralistic society.”101
Cultural pluralism has since evolved into what is now known as “multiculturalism.”102 Locke has recently been acknowledged as “the father
of multiculturalism.”103
Locke embraced the Bahá’í Faith in 1918, the same year that
he received his Ph.D. from Harvard. Rather than interpreting this
as a coincidence, it makes more sense to see this as a convergence.
Although the details remain sketchy, it is necessary therefore to reflect
on the circumstances of his conversion. One might ask: Did Locke’s
investigation of the Bahá’í Faith, which evidently occurred between
the years 1915 and 1918, have any impact on his graduate work? To
what extent is Bahá’í influence in evidence throughout Locke’s career,
as reflected in his published as well as unpublished work? Was there
reciprocal influence as well—a synergy between the two? These questions are essential to a proper study of Locke’s public legacy.
Notes
1. This chapter is based, in part, on the autobiographical note that prefaced
Locke’s first formal philosophical essay, “Values and Imperatives,” published
when he was fifty years old (1935). Locke refers to this self-narrative as his
“psychograph.” (Alain Locke, “Values and Imperatives,” in American Philosophy,
Today and Tomorrow, ed. by Sidney Hook and Horace M. Kallen (New York:
Lee Furman, 1935) pp. 313-33. Reprint: Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press,
1968. Locke’s psychograph, “Alain Locke,” appears on p. 312. (This is the first
of Locke’s essays in Leonard Harris, The Philosophy of Alain Locke, pp. 34-50.)
In it, Locke does not directly mention the fact that he was a Bahá’í. But he does
allude to it, calling himself a “universalist in religion.” Periodic references to
Locke’s psychograph will be made throughout the chapter.
2. Cited by Horace M. Kallen, “Alain Locke and Cultural Pluralism,” Journal of
Philosophy, Vol. 54, no. 5 (28 February 1957) p. 121.
3. Ibid., p. 122.
4. Monique Deveaux, Cultural Pluralism and Dilemmas of Justice (London:
Cornell University Press, 2000) p. 6.
5. Winston, “Locke, Alain LeRoy,” p. 398.
6. For verification of Locke’s birth date, I obtained a document issued by
the “Department of Public Health and Charities, Bureau of Health” (City Hall,
Philadelphia), Alain Locke Papers, Box 164-1, Folder 1, Manuscript Division,
MSRC, Howard University. See note by Leonard Harris, “Rendering the Text,” in
The Philosophy of Alain Locke.
26
alain locke: faith & philosophy
7. This was the case when Locke filled out his “Bahá’í Historical Record” card.
Under “Birthdate,” Locke had entered “September 13, 1886.” Bahá’í Historical
Record Cards Collection, and Biographical Information Collection, National
Bahá’í Archives, Wilmette, Ill (hereafter NBA).
8. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-1, Folder 2 (Autobiographical statements). Although his middle name was formally spelled “LeRoy,” in full signature
he would write “Leroy,” as evident on his “Bahá’í Historical Record” card signature. Bahá’í Historical Record Cards Collection, and Biographical Information
Collection, NBA.
9. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-1, Folder 2 (Autobiographical statements). Although his middle name was formally spelled “LeRoy,” in full signature
he would write “Leroy,” as evident on his “Bahá’í Historical Record” card signature. Bahá’í Historical Record Cards Collection, and Biographical Information
Collection, NBA.
10 . See, for instance, Locke to Parsons, 21 October 1922, Agnes Parsons Papers,
NBA. Courtesy of Roger Dahl, Archivist, enclosure sent 20 February 2001.
11 . Locke to Cook, 10 Jan. 1913, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-21, Folder
46 (Cook, George William).
12. Kallen, “Alain Locke and Cultural Pluralism,” p. 122.
13. Late in life, Locke reminisced about some of his childhood experiences. See
Douglas K. Stafford, “Alain Locke: The Child, the Man, and the People,” Journal
of Negro Education, Vol. 30, no. 1 (Winter 1961) pp. 25-34.
14. M. Anthony Fitchue, “Locke and Du Bois: Two Major Black Voices Muzzled
by Philanthropic Organizations,” Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, Issue 14
(Winter 1996-1997) p. 111. Online. JSTOR. Accessed 5 March 2001.
15. Winston, “Locke, Alain LeRoy,” p. 398.
16 . Rayford W. Logan, Howard University:The First Hundred Years 1867-1967
(New York: New York University Press, 1969) p. 50.
17. Winston, “Locke, Alain LeRoy,” p. 398, mistakenly reads “1891.”
18. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-1, Folder 2 (Autobiographical statements).
19. Winston, “Locke, Alain LeRoy,” p. 398.
20. Hutchison, The Harlem Renaissance in Black and White, 40.
21. Ibid., pp. 39-40.
22. Kallen, “Alain Locke and Cultural Pluralism,” 122.
23. Harris, Philosophy of Alain Locke, 5.
24. Ibid., pp. 3-5.
25. Ibid., pp. 4 and 293.
26 . “Biographical Memo: Alain (LeRoy) Locke,” Alain Locke Papers, MSRC,
Box 164-1, Folder 2 (Autobiographical statements). This memo was later published in Twentieth Century Authors, ed. Stanley Kunitz and Howard Haycroft
(New York: 1942) p. 837, with a photograph of Locke bearing the erroneous
caption, “J. L. Allen.” (Photocopy archived in the same folder.)
27 . Locke to Charlotte Osgood Mason, 12 April 1934, Alain Locke Papers,
MSRC, Box 164-71 (1934?).
28. [Untitled], Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-1, Folder 2 (Autobiographical
statements).
29. Locke to Parsons, 28 June 1922, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA.
self-portrait
27
30. Winston, “Locke, Alain LeRoy,” p. 398.
31. Mason, Locke’s Social Philosophy, p. 25.
32. Harris, Philosophy of Alain Locke, p. 4.
33 . Stewart, A Biography of Alain Locke, p. 53.
34. Winston, “Locke, Alain LeRoy,” p. 398.
35 . Qtd. in Stewart, A Biography of Alain Locke, p. 107.
36. Nancy Fraser, “Another Pragmatism: Alain Locke, Critical ‘Race’ Theory,
and the Politics of Culture” in The Critical Pragmatism of Alain Locke: A Reader
on Value Theory, Aesthetics, Community, Culture, Race, and Education, ed. by
Leonard Harris (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999) p. 6.
37. Jeffrey C. Stewart, “A Black Aesthete at Oxford,” Massachusetts Review, Vol.
34, no. 3 (1993) pp. 411-28.
38. Kallen, “Alain Locke and Cultural Pluralism,” p. 119.
39. Hutchison, The Harlem Renaissance in Black and White, p. 85. See also
Ross Posnock, Color and Culture: Black Writers and the Making of the Modern
Intellectual (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998) p. 191.
40. Menand, The Metaphysical Club, p. 391.
41. Posnock, Color and Culture, p. 192.
42. Kallen, “Alain Locke and Cultural Pluralism,” p. 119.
43. Ibid., p. 122.
44. Hutchison, The Harlem Renaissance in Black and White, p. 85.
45. Louis Menand, The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America (New
York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2001) p. 390.
46. Menand, The Metaphysical Club, p. 390.
47 . Ibid., p. 391.
48. Ibid., p. 391.
49. Kallen, “Alain Locke and Cultural Pluralism,” p. 122.
50. Alain Locke, “Oxford Contrasts,” Independent, Vol. 67 (July 1909) pp. 139-42.
See also Locke, “The American Temperament,” North American Review, Vol. 194
(August 1911) pp. 262-70.
51. Harris, Philosophy of Alain Locke, p. 294.
52. Posnock, Color and Culture, p. 194.
53. Kallen, “Alain Locke and Cultural Pluralism,” p. 122.
54. Winston, “Locke, Alain LeRoy,”p. 399.
55. Stewart, “A Black Aesthete at Oxford.”
56. Kallen, “Alain Locke and Cultural Pluralism,” p. 122. Menand, Metaphysical
Club, p. 390.
57 . M. G. Brock and M. C. Curthoys, eds., The History of the University of
Oxford, Vol. VII: Nineteenth-Century Oxford, Part 2 (Oxford University Press,
2000) p. 804, citing Jeffrey Green, Black Edwardians (1998) p. 154.
58 . Cited by Horace M. Kallen, “Alain Locke and Cultural Pluralism.” Journal of
Philosophy, Vol. 54, no. 5 (28 February 1957) pp. 121.
59 . Locke to Washington, undated (probably January 1911), Alain Locke Papers,
MSRC, Box 164-91, Folder 55 (Washington, Booker T.).
60 . Washington to Locke, 11 January 1911, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 16491, Folder 55 (Washington, Booker T.).
61 . Washington to Locke, 8 January 1912, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-
28
alain locke: faith & philosophy
91, Folder 55 (Washington, Booker T.). Locke to Washington, 8 January 1912,
cited by Jeffrey Stewart, A Biography of Alain Locke, p. 171.
62 . “Can see you at Hotel Manhattan six o’clock this evening.” Washington to
Locke, 18 April 1910 (cablegram), Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-91,
Folder 55 (Washington, Booker T.).
63 . “Biographical Memo: Alain (LeRoy) Locke,” Alain Locke Papers, MSRC,
Box 164-1, Folder 2 (Autobiographical statements).
64 . Kallen, “Alain Locke and Cultural Pluralism,” p. 122. Menand, Metaphysical
Club, p. 390.
65 . Washington to Locke, 12 September 1912, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box
164-91, Folder 55 (Washington, Booker T.).
66. Charles Molesworth, “Alain Locke and Walt Whitman: Manifestos and
National Identity,” in The Critical Pragmatism of Alain Locke: A Reader on Value
Theory, Aesthetics, Community, Culture, Race, and Education, ed. by Leonard
Harris (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999) p. 176.
67. William B. Harvey, “The Philosophical Anthropology of Alain Locke,” in
Russell J. Linnemann, ed., Alain Locke: Reflections on a Modern Renaissance
Man (Baton Rouge and London: Louisiana State University, 1982) p. 18.
68. Kallen, “Alain Locke and Cultural Pluralism,” p. 122. For an analysis of
Locke’s dissertation on value theory, see Ernest Mason, “Alain Locke’s Philosophy
of Value,” in Russell J. Linnemann, ed., Alain Locke: Reflections, pp. 1-16. Locke
had originally intended to study with Royce as his Ph.D. supervisor, but Royce had
died by the time Locke returned to Harvard.
69. Harris, Philosophy of Alain Locke, p. 10.
70. Alain Locke, “Values and Imperatives,” in American Philosophy, Today and
Tomorrow, ed. Sidney Hook and Horace M. Kallen (New York: Lee Furman, 1935)
pp. 313-33. Reprint: Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1968. Leonard Harris
selected this essay to be the first in his magnificent anthology, The Philosophy of
Alain Locke, pp. 34-50.
71. Alain Locke, The Problem of Classification in the Theory of Values, p. 124.
72. Mason, “Alain Locke’s Social Philosophy,” 28.
73. Alain Locke, The Problem of Classification in the Theory of Values, p. 122.
74 . Ibid.
75. Ibid.
76. Ibid., p. 169.
77. Harris, The Philosophy of Alain Locke, p. 43.
78. Ibid., p. 272
79. Molesworth, “Alain Locke and Walt Whitman,” p. 175.
80. Fitchue, “Locke and Du Bois,” p. 113.
81. Kallen, “Alain Locke and Cultural Pluralism,” p. 122.
82. Menand, The Metaphysical Club, p. 351.
83. James T. Kloppenberg, “Pragmatism: An Old Name for Some New Ways of
Thinking?” Journal of American History, Vol. 83, no. 1 (June 1996) p. 102, n. 3.
84. Posnock, Color and Culture, p. 184.
85. Harris, Philosophy of Alain Locke, p. 4.
86. Alain Locke, “Pluralism and Intellectual Democracy,” in Conference on
Science, Philosophy and Religion, Second Symposium (New York: Conference on
self-portrait
29
Science, Philosophy and Religion, 1942). Reprinted in Harris, The Philosophy of
Alain Locke, p. 53.
87. Kloppenberg, “Pragmatism: An Old Name for Some New Ways of Thinking?”
p. 101.
88. Ibid., p. 120.
89. Houston Baker, Jr., Modernism and the Harlem Renaissance (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1987) p. 75, quoted by Harris, Philosophy of Alain
Locke, p. 12. See Ernest Mason, “Deconstruction in the Philosophy of Alain
Locke,” Transactions of the Charles S. Pierce Society, Vol. 24 (Winter 1988) pp.
85-106.
90. Posnock, Color and Culture, p. 187.
91. Ibid.
92 . Lecture 8, November 1950, Howard University.
93. Judith Green, “Alain Locke’s Multicultural Philosophy of Value,” The Critical
Pragmatism of Alain Locke: A Reader on Value Theory, Aesthetics, Community,
Culture, Race, and Education, ed. by Leonard Harris (Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield, 1999) p. 87.
94 . Presented to the “Gentlemen of the Harvard Philosophical Club” on 7
February 1930.
95 . Locke, “Cultural Relativism,” Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-112,
Folder 23 (“Cultural Relativism”) p. 1 (handwritten speech).
96 . Ibid., p. 3.
97. Ibid., pp. 7-8.
98. Napier, “Affirming Critical Conceptualism,” p. 109.
99. Mason, “Social Philosophy of Alain Locke.”
100. Ibid., p. 34.
101. Ibid.
102. Posnock, Color and Culture, p. 192.
103. Molesworth, “Alain Locke and Walt Whitman,” pp. 175-76.
WASHINGTON, D.C., BAHÁ’Í COMMUNITY, c. 1930
Back Row (l. to r.): George D. Miller, Clarence Baker, Allen B. McDaniel, Margaret McDaniel, William E. Gibson, Florence
King, Paul Haney, Mariam Haney, unknown, unknown, Carl C. King, Charles Mason Remey, James F. Fletcher, Stanwood Cobb,
Tahmineh Irani Parsons, unknown, Hanna Lohse, unknown, Doris Lohse, Ardeshir Behram Irani, Sr., Frank Shuman Stewart,
Ardeshir Behram Irani, Jr. Middle Row (l. to r.): Unknown, Caroline Stewart, unknown, Frank Phelps, unknown, Ethel M. Murray
(Hunt), Alfredo Warsaw, Isabel Rives, C. Newell Atkinson, Selma Gustavson, unknown, Milly Baker, unknown, C. A. Ragg, Louise
Shuman Irani, Mrs. Clyde Reagle, unknown, unknown, unknown, Ursula Shuman Moore, unknown, Elizabeth Hopper, unknown.
Next Row (l. to r.):Mrs. Alfredo Warsaw, Carrie Fuhrman, unknown, Leone Barnitz, Louise D. Boyle, Charlotte Dixon, unknown,
Mrs. George Drum, George Drum, unknown, George S. Hopper. Front Row: Unknown.
Bahá’í World Center
Chapter Three
The Early Washington, D.C.
Bahá’í Community
One can appreciate the deep-seated desire and the ever-recurrent but
Utopian dream of the idealist that somehow a single faith, a common
culture, an all-embracing institutional life and its confraternity
should some day unite man by merging all his loyalties and culture
values. But even with almost complete intercommunication within
practical grasp, that day seems distant, especially since we have as
great need for cultural pluralism in a single unit of society as in a
nation as large and as composite as our own. . . . The pluralist way
to unity seems by far the most practicable.
—Alain Locke, “Pluralism and Ideological Peace” (1947).1
In his psychograph, Locke had described himself as a “universalist
in religion.”2 In a private communication, one leading authority on
Locke recently expressed doubts as to his formal affiliation with the
Bahá’í Faith. So, the question has to be asked: What direct proof,
beyond circumstantial evidence, establishes Locke’s actual status as a
Bahá’í? While he certainly associated with Bahá’ís and participated in
Bahá’í-sponsored events—over a number of years, in fact—was Locke
ever formally on record as a declared Bahá’í? Moreover, did Locke’s
involvement in the Bahá’í Faith influence his vocation as a philosopher? To address these questions, I will discuss Locke’s affiliation with
and activity within the Bahá’í Faith based on archival documents as
well as published materials.
31
32
alain locke: faith & philosophy
In 1918, Locke was inspired by a vision of race unity and world
peace. This was not a mystical vision, but a long-range and practical
one. The ideas and ideals of the faith that fired his imagination gave
Locke hope that “the ever-recurrent Utopian dream of the idealist” of
“a single faith, a common culture, an all-embracing institutional life
and its confraternity” that could one day “unite man by merging all his
loyalties and culture values” might, in the distant future, come true.
This was the Bahá’í vision, which captured Locke’s imagination and
won his allegiance.
Against the backdrop of black Washington, and the pervasive segregation that racialized the city, Bahá’í initiatives that aimed at improving race relations were a light shining in darkness.
A Professor’s Life in Black Washington: Black life in Washington was
segregated from the Reconstruction period through World War II. This
roughly encompasses Locke’s lifetime (1885-1954). Segregation was
an unpleasant fact, but in the District of Columbia it did not become
government policy until the Wilson Administration. During Wilson’s
presidency, black and white employees ate in separate spaces in the
Bureau of Engraving cafeteria, while separate washrooms had been
installed in the Treasury Department. It goes without saying that
housing segregation was already in place. Both at work and at home,
Wilson’s policies reinforced the wall of segregation, bifurcating
Washington into an interior black enclave, surrounded by the white
urban area that engulfed it.3
Whites ignored blacks as best they could. According to Constance
Green: “Whatever the reason, whites chose to build an invisible wall
about all colored Washington and then strove to forget about what
a contributor to Crisis called the Secret City.”4 As a world traveler,
and although his horizons were infinitely broader, the Secret City was
Locke’s immediate world.
The Secret City combined extremes of wealth and poverty. Race
and class went hand-in-hand. Yet a thriving culture developed in Black
Washington of which White Washington, to its detriment, was largely
oblivious. Thus, Black Washington’s rich culture was also “secret.”
Locke felt strongly that culture, like language, captured the soul and
genius of a people. And, since cultures are composite—always assimilating as well as innovating—America ought not only to appreciate the
fact that black culture has its peculiar genius and that this had intrinsic
the early washington, d.c. bahá’í community
33
value, but that black culture had influenced the dominant American
culture as well.
Considering Locke’s central role in it, the term “Harlem Renaissance”
is actually a misnomer, because there was a profusion of black art, literature, and music centered in Washington as well. Evidence of this can
be seen in the literary productions that launched the movement. After
the phenomenal success of his special issue of The Survey Graphic
(1925), Locke expanded that issue into a book, The New Negro, which
became the manifesto of the movement. Of the thirty-five contributors
in this collection of poetry and essays, nearly half the writers and artists
were either born in Washington, lived or worked there, or had attended
Howard.5
Within the Secret City is Howard University. Hailed as the “capstone of Negro education,”6 Howard University is the oldest and most
prestigious historically black university in America.7 Founded in 1867
by an act of Congress and opened as a “normal” or teachers college in
1869, Howard University is located on 150 acres overlooking Georgia
Avenue. The more outstanding professors at Howard served as race
leaders within their respective disciplines. According to Holloway,
Locke deserves “special mention” for the way in which his work
“represented the politically radical edge” in that he, like other Howard
notables, developed “strategies that would prop up black America
while simultaneously uniting the nation’s races.” Moreover, “Locke
endeavored to bridge the racial gap by demonstrating the cultural worth
of blacks to white America.” Thus, The New Negro, succeeded in “capturing the new and urgent tone of black America.”8 In the midst of this
activity, Locke encountered the “Bahá’í Cause,” as the Bahá’í Faith
was then known. This new religion was making concerted efforts to
cross the color line. In effect, it sacralized cultural pluralism. The new
faith embodied some of the principles Locke personally held as sacred,
in his own secular way.
Many African Americans in Washington enjoyed civil service
employment in the federal government. Throughout the early twentieth
century, however, educators “formed the core of black Washington’s
stable middle class.”9 Thus, during the decade of 1910, the so-called
“government official set” was counterbalanced by an influx of the
“educational set.”10 Howard professors comprised a major segment of
these professionals. While they worked in the university, professors at
Howard, like everyone else in the community, lived and recreated in the
34
alain locke: faith & philosophy
Secret City. For black Washingtonians, the U Street district, situated in
the northwest sector, was the leading business center by day and the
premier cultural and sporting center by night. U Street itself came to
be known as Washington’s “Black Broadway.”11 Locke had favorite
haunts in the U district where educators could often be seen.
From Seventh and T Streets to Fourteenth and U, the shopping district ran roughly seven blocks east to west. Professors would patronize
Harrison’s Café on 455 Florida Avenue N.W.12 Or they might stop in
at Thurston’s for a bite to eat, or Tim’s Hot Dog Stand on-the-go, or the
Twelfth Street YMCA to enjoy an evening meal. They would typically
walk into Greg’s Barber Shop for a haircut, and go to the shoeshine
around the corner. Locke had portraits taken at Scurlock Photographic
Studio at 9th and U, the most prominent African-American photography studio in Washington, D.C. and the official photographer for
Howard University.
As new films would debut each Monday, patrons would flock to
either the Lincoln or the Republic Theater. In 1927, ticket prices for the
best seats sold for forty cents, with admission to a matinee being only
ten cents. For the black middle and upper class, life was comfortable.
They enjoyed the benefits of a rich social environment. But the harsh
realities of racism were never far away.13 Howard professor Sterling
Brown described the U Street district of Locke’s day eloquently:
When the outsider stands upon U Street in the early hours of the evening and
watches the crowds go by, togged out in finery, with jests upon their lips—this
one rushing to the poolroom, this one seeking escape with Hoot Gibson,
another to lose herself in Hollywood glamour, another in one of the many
dance halls—he is likely to be unaware, as these people momentarily are, of
aspects of life in Washington of graver import to the darker one-fourth. . . .
Around the corner there may be a squalid slum with people jobless and desperate; the alert youngster, capable and well trained, may find on the morrow
all employment closed to him. The Negro of Washington has no voice in
government, is economically proscribed, and segregated nearly as rigidly as in
the southern cities he contemns. He may blind himself with pleasure seeking,
with a specious self-sufficiency, he may point with pride to the record of
achievement over grave odds. But just as the past was not without its honor,
so the present is not without bitterness.14
This was Locke’s immediate world. But there was more to it than
that. There was the Bahá’í community that, in its own nonpolitical way,
led a quiet revolution against the Jim Crow mind-set. A brief descrip-
the early washington, d.c. bahá’í community
35
tion of the Washington, D.C. Bahá’í community will help provide an
immediate context for Locke’s conversion. Unfortunately, the details
of that conversion are sketchy. But the racial tensions that led up to the
Washington race riots of 1919 must have reinforced Locke’s resolve to
dedicate his life to improving race relations.
The Washington, D.C. Bahá’í Community: In 1944, Gunnar Myrdal,
in his celebrated book, American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and
Modern Democracy, stated in a footnote that the Bahá’í Faith was “the
only white-dominated” religious community “in which there may be
said to be absolutely no segregation.”15 Historically, there were exceptions to this rule. In fact, what made Myrdal’s observation true in 1944
is that the American Bahá’í community had only reached that point
after having to struggle directly with the issue of racial prejudice in the
early period of its development in America, particularly in Washington,
D.C.
Remarkably, the Bahá’í Faith had its origins in nineteenth-century
Iran. It marks its origins in the millenarian movement initiated by a
young, Muslim merchant of Shiraz, Sayyid ‘Alí-Muhammad, who
took the title of the Báb (Gate). In 1844, he claimed a divine mission
and began to gather followers around himself. The Báb eventually announced that he was a prophet of God equal in station to Muhammad
and that his religion would supplant and supercede Islam. Of course,
such a movement encountered fierce opposition from the Shí‘í clergy
and eventually from the state. Thousands of Bábís were attacked,
tortured, and martyred for their faith. The Báb himself was arrested,
imprisoned, and eventually executed on July 9, 1850.16
The movement soon found a new leader in one of the Báb’s prominent and wealthy followers, Mírzá Husayn-‘Alí Núrí, who assumed the
title Bahá’u’lláh. He reinterpreted the Báb’s message and became the
founder of the new Bahá’í Faith (1863). Bahá’u’lláh claimed to be the
messianic figure the Báb had foretold and a prophet of God in his own
right—equal to, and perhaps greater than, the Báb himself. He also laid
claim to be the messianic figure of other religious traditions, claiming to be the Return of Christ for example.17 Because of his religious
teachings, he was arrested in Tehran, and banished from Iran for the rest
of his life. He was sent first to Baghdad in Iraq, but later to Istanbul
and Edirne, in Turkey, and then to ‘Akká in Palestine. From his exiles
in Ottoman realms (1853-1892), he reshaped the Bábí teachings into
36
alain locke: faith & philosophy
a new quietist and liberal religion with universal claims. Bahá’u’lláh
taught that all of the great religions of the world have come from God,
each tailored to the particular requirements of its time. Therefore, divine
revelation is relative and progressive; the prophets of God appear every
thousand years or so to renew the spirit of religion and update its social
laws. All but a small minority of Bábís had become Bahá’ís by the time
of the second prophet’s death (1892).18
In his will and testament, Bahá’u’lláh transferred leadership of his
religion to his son, ‘Abbas Effendi, known as ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. The son
had shared his father’s exile and imprisonment. He was not released
from confinement in ‘Akká until 1908. After Bahá’u’lláh’s passing, the
Bahá’í teachings began to attract followers in Europe and America. The
earliest Bahá’í communities in the United States were established in
and near Chicago in 1894. From there, the Bahá’í Faith spread to other
major cities through the vigorous missionary efforts of the American
Bahá’ís who remained in close contact with ‘Abdu’l-Bahá through correspondence.
By 1912, there were enough Bahá’ís in America (probably around
2,000) to attract a visit from ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, who toured the country
from April to December of that year—visiting New York, Washington
D.C., Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Los Angeles,
among other cities. In his meetings with the Bahá’ís, but especially
in his public lectures, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá advocated universal brotherhood
and world peace. He offered the Bahá’í teachings as a means of liberal
social change. He urged his followers to exert themselves in service to
remove the barriers between races and religions so that all of humanity
might become one family. He was especially offended by racial prejudice as he encountered it in America, and he spoke against it publicly,
most notably at Howard University.19
After ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s visit, Bahá’ís during this period summarized
their beliefs in ten or twelve social principles gleaned from his public
talks. These principles very much shaped their own identity as Bahá’ís
and provided a liberal agenda to present to the public. These principles
were usually formulated as:
(1) The oneness of mankind;
(2) Independent investigation of truth;
(3) The common foundation of all religions;
(4) The essential harmony of science and religion;
the early washington, d.c. bahá’í community
37
(5) Equality of men and women;
(6) Elimination of prejudice of all kinds;
(7) Universal compulsory education;
(8) A spiritual solution of the economic problem;
(9) A universal auxiliary language;
(10) Universal peace upheld by a world government.20
It is to these principles that Locke would soon commit himself by
becoming a Bahá’í in Washington, D.C.
Robert Stockman has written on the history of the early Washington
D.C. Bahá’í community through 1912.21 “Perhaps Washington’s most
important contribution to the North American Bahá’í community,
ultimately,” writes Stockman, “was its effort to teach the Bahá’í Faith
to black Americans.”22 Much of the credit for this must go to Joseph
and Pauline Hannen.23 But Pauline had to overcome her own fear of
blacks, which she had always had since her childhood in Wilmington,
North Carolina. At a time before ‘Abdu’l-Bahá had begun to address
racial issues in his messages to American believers, and well before
Bahá’u’lláh’s specific teachings on this subject were known, one of
Bahá’u’lláh’s admonitions found in The Hidden Words was destined to
transform Pauline’s prejudice into a desire for racial unity:
O CHILDREN OF MEN!
Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should
exalt himself over the other. Ponder at all times in your hearts how ye were
created. Since We have created you all from one same substance it is incumbent on you to be even as one soul, to walk with the same feet, eat with the
same mouth and dwell in the same land, that from your inmost being, by your
deeds and actions, the signs of oneness and the essence of detachment may
be made manifest. Such is My counsel to you, O concourse of light! Heed ye
this counsel that ye may obtain the fruit of holiness from the tree of wondrous
glory.24
One snowy day, during the Thanksgiving season, Pauline came
across a black woman trudging through the snow. Pauline noticed that
the woman’s shoelaces were untied. Arms full from the bundles she
was carrying, the woman was unable to do anything about it. Inspired
by this passage from The Hidden Words, Pauline knelt down in the
snow to tie this woman’s shoes for her. “She was astonished,” Pauline
recalled, “and those who saw it appeared to think I was crazy.” That
event marked a turning point for Pauline: she resolved to bring the
38
alain locke: faith & philosophy
Bahá’í message of unity to black people.
At first, Pauline and Joseph Hannen held Bahá’í meetings in the
homes of Pocohontas Pope and Carrie York, so that their black friends
could hear about the Bahá’í Faith. The Hannens then began to invite
blacks to meetings in their own home, which Stockman observes “was
a daring thing to do.” By July 1908, fifteen African Americans had
embraced the faith in Washington, D.C.25 In a letter dated May 1909,
Pauline Hannen wrote:
The work among the colored people was really started by my sainted Mother
and Sister Alma [Knobloch,] though I was the one who first gave the Message
to Mrs. [Pocahontas] Pope and Mrs. Turner. My Mother and Sister went to
their home in this way[,] meeting others[,] giving the Message to quite a
number and started Meetings. Then my sister left for Germany where she now
teaches, I then took up the work. During the Winter of 1907 it became my
great pleasure with the help of Rhoda Turner colored who opened her home
for me, 424 [?] S. St. N.W. to arrange a number of very large and beautiful
Meetings. Mrs. Lua Getsinger spoke to them here several times at Mrs. Pope’s
as Mirza Ali Kuli Khan, Mr. [Howard] McNutt and Mr. Hooper Harris spoke
in Mrs. Turner’s home. Mr. [Hooper] Harris spoke at Mrs. Pope[’]s [at] 12
N St. N.W. for my sister before his leaving on his trip to Acca and India. Mr.
Hannen also spoke several times. My working to being to run around and
arrange the meeting. At these Meetings we had from twenty to fourty [sic]
colored people of the intellectual class.
Through Mr. [Louis] Gregory, an influential man among the colored race
especially among the schools, arrangements were made for Mr. Hannen to
address twice the Literary Club of Howard University, this opened a new field
and from this time on Jan. 1908 to the present time Mr. Hannen and I work
for the colored people at the [their?] request.26 This opened a new field to
work in. Now the home [hope?] of Abdul Baha, who told us in Acca He hoped
we would be the means of bringing about peace between the Blacks and the
Whites.27
The Hannens would eventually play a key role in Locke’s conversion to the Bahá’í Faith.
Outreach to African Americans: In March 1910, Washington Bahá’ís
began to hold integrated meetings. These meetings were hosted in the
homes of Joseph and Pauline Hannen and Mr. and Mrs. Andrew Dyer.
This was proudly announced in the first issue of the new national
journal, Bahai News:
On the evening of March 6th, an important gathering assembled at the home
of Mr. and Mrs. Hannen, representing the joining in one meeting of the white
the early washington, d.c. bahá’í community
39
and the colored Bahá’ís and friends of this city. Considerable work is being
done among the latter, and a regular weekly meeting is held at the home of
Mr. and Mrs. Dyer, 1937 13th Street, N.W., on Wednesdays. In February of
last year, Abdul-Baha commanded that to prove the validity of our Teachings
and as a means of removing existing prejudices between the races, a Spiritual
Assembly or meeting be held, preferably at the home of one of the white
Bahai’s, in which both races should join. This is the first meeting of that
character, and is to be repeated monthly. There were present about 35 persons,
one-third of whom were colored, and nearly all believers. It is also planned
that every fourth Unity Feast,28 beginning April 9, should be held in such
manner that both races can join. This is a radical step in this section of the
country, and is in reality making history.29
Washington, D.C. was a thoroughly segregated city. Some churches
may have held racially mixed meetings. But “very few if any,” as
Robert Stockman points out, “were committed to creating a single
religious community out of blacks and whites.”30 (At the same time, it
should be added that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá eventually prohibited the restriction
to every fourth Feast, sending clear instructions that every Feast should
be open to all Bahá’ís.31) The Bahá’ís of Washington, D.C. were the
first racially integrated Bahá’í community, a fact that had far-reaching consequences for the future development of the North American
Bahá’ís, as Stockman also observes:
The fact that the first Bahá’í community in the United States to reach out to
black Americans did not establish a separate community for black Bahá’ís
was an act of enormous significance for the future course of racial integration in the Bahá’í Faith. It presaged efforts which by the end of the twentieth
century had so increased the religion’s black American membership that
perhaps thirty percent of the American Bahá’í community was of African
descent.32
Prior to March 1910, the Washington Bahá’í community had held
racially separate meetings. Once people of color entered the Bahá’í
community, white Bahá’ís—particularly the conservative ones—may
have given their intellectual assent to Bahá’í egalitarian principles, but
were simply unwilling to mix with blacks during the Jim Crow era. To
some, such integration was moving too fast, too soon. These individuals favored a gradual implementation of Bahá’í teachings on interracial
unity. Some early Bahá’ís, particularly within the Washington, D.C.
community, wanted to maintain racially separate meetings. Because of
the enormous social pressures the Bahá’ís were under, it took considerable time and effort to completely extirpate this problem. It should be
40
alain locke: faith & philosophy
said that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá strenuously objected to segregated practices. As
early as February 1909, he had directed the Bahá’ís to hold interracial
meetings.33
Louis Gregory, who had become a Bahá’í in June 1909, and had
written to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá that same year, was the first to directly raise
this problem. While enjoying complete acceptance in the home of the
Hannens, Gregory encountered the practice of holding racially separate
Bahá’í meetings in the Bahá’í community at large. An attorney by
profession, Gregory brought this problem to the attention of the local
executive body, known as the “Working Committee.”34 As the first
highly educated black Bahá’í, Gregory became an agent of change
within the Bahá’í community. What made this social transformation
possible were the Bahá’í principles themselves, which were energized
and exemplified by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. By expressing those principles in
poetic language, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá inspired the fledgling American Bahá’í
community to take a leadership role in race relations. For the most
part, the Bahá’ís successfully overcame the prevailing social norms and
emerged united. A close look at ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s imagery will show how
he used ennobling language to augment the sense of self-worth in every
African American who would take these words to heart.
Blacks as the “Pupil of the Eye”: While there are several passages in
the writings of Bahá’u’lláh that speak to issues of race unity, it was
‘Abdu’l-Bahá who drew out the implications of these teachings and
prioritized America’s racial crisis as the most urgent task at hand. This
can be seen in his talks and “tablets” (i.e., letters) to various Bahá’ís
within Washington, D.C. and across America. At the level of principle,
‘Abdu’l-Bahá propounded the simple yet profound message of interracial unity. Within his discourse itself, however, he encoded these principles as paradisiac imagery. The following tablet from “the Master”
(as ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was called) was addressed to Mrs. Pocohontas Pope
in Washington. The recipient of the tablet was a black woman.35 As
mentioned earlier, it was through Pauline Hannen that Mrs. Pope
learned of the Bahá’í Faith.
Render thanks to the Lord that among that race thou art the first believer,
that thou hast engaged in spreading sweet-scented breezes, and hast arisen to
guide others. It is my hope that through the bounties and favors of the ‘Abhá
Beauty [Bahá’u’lláh] thy countenance may be illumined, thy disposition
pleasing, and thy fragrance diffused, that thine eyes may be seeing, thine ears
the early washington, d.c. bahá’í community
41
attentive, thy tongue eloquent, thy heart filled with supreme glad-tidings, and
thy soul refreshed by divine fragrances, so that thou mayest arise among that
race and occupy thyself with the edification of the people, and become filled
with light. Although the pupil of the eye is black, it is the source of light.
Thou shalt likewise be. The disposition should be bright, not the appearance.
Therefore, with supreme confidence and certitude, say: “O God! Make me a
radiant light, a shining lamp, and a brilliant star, so that I may illumine the
hearts with an effulgent ray from Thy Kingdom of ‘Abhá.36
The reader is struck by the profusion of light imagery in this densely
ornate passage. The tablet concludes with a prayer both to receive
enlightenment and for the power to enlighten others. The individual conduit for this spiritual and social illumination is, obviously,
Pocohontas Pope herself. Yet there is also a collective application to all
people of African descent.
The “pupil of the eye” became a potent, transformative metaphor.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, in fact, employed this image in a number of his tablets.
The idea, which is more or less self-evident, is that it is the pupil that
admits light into the eye. In comparing blacks to the pupil of the eye,
‘Abdu’l-Bahá appears to be saying that African Americans and people
of African descent can, in a sense, illuminate the rest of the human race
by serving as the aperture of light whereby the “eye” or consciousness
of the rest of humanity can “see.”
A couple of more examples should suffice to show how this metaphor gained currency within the early Bahá’í community. In a letter to
Alan A. Anderson (the second African American convert to the Faith in
Washington, D.C.) ‘Abdu’l-Bahá wrote:
O thou who hast an illumined heart! Thou art even as the pupil of the eye
(mardúmak-i chasm), the very wellspring of the light, for God’s love hath
cast its rays upon thine inmost being and thou hast turned thy face toward the
Kingdom of thy Lord.
Intense is the hatred, in America, between black and white, but my hope
is that the power of the Kingdom will bind these two in friendship, and serve
them as a healing balm.
Let them look not upon a man’s color but upon his heart. If the heart be
filled with light, that man is nigh unto the threshold of his Lord; but if not,
that man is careless of his Lord, be he white or be he black.37
In contrast to prevailing social habits, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá emphasizes
character over characteristics here. That is, one should not focus on
another’s extrinsic racial characteristics (“color”), but rather on that
42
alain locke: faith & philosophy
person’s intrinsic character (“heart”) as a determinant of moral worth.
Another example of this rhetoric of stressing character over characteristics may be cited here. In a letter sent through Phoebe Hearst (mother
of newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst) to her servant, Robert
Turner, the first black Bahá’í in America, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá wrote:
O thou who art pure in heart, sanctified in spirit, peerless in character, beauteous in face! Thy photograph hath been received revealing thy physical frame
in the utmost grace and the best appearance. Thou art dark in countenance
and bright in character. Thou art like unto the pupil of the eye (insán al-‘ayn)
which is dark in color, yet it is the fount of light and the revealer of the contingent world.
I have not forgotten nor will I forget thee. I beseech God that He may
graciously make thee the sign of His bounty amidst mankind, illumine thy
face with the light of such blessings as are vouchsafed by the merciful Lord,
single thee out for His love in this age which is distinguished among all the
past ages and centuries.38
On first sight, this might appear to be a racial characterization of
African Americans. Again, the pattern of stressing character over characteristics is evident here. In this instance, the “character” of all people
of African descent as the “pupil of the eye” is corporate or collective.
The Persian counterpart for the Arabic term insán is mardúmak. Both
words also refer to a man or human being. Therefore, there appears
to be a word-play here, which may have governed the choice of this
ennobling and empowering metaphor, which ‘Abdu’l-Bahá ascribes to
Bahá’u’lláh himself: “Bahá’u’lláh once compared the colored people to
the black pupil of the eye surrounded by the white. In this black pupil
is seen the reflection of that which is before it, and through it the light
of the spirit shineth forth.”39
As Richard Thomas observes, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá “transformed the traditional racist color symbolism and imagery into the symbolism and
imagery of racial unity.” By so doing, “‘Abdu’l-Bahá enabled them
[Bahá’ís] to counter and transcend the racist cultural tendencies so
ingrained in the American national character.”40 This same rhetorical strategy of racial upliftment was employed by Alain Locke in the
essays he personally wrote for his anthology, The New Negro.
The Universal Races Congress (1911): The year 1911 was a watershed
year in the history of race relations at the international level because
of the First Universal Races Congress held on 26-29 July 1911 at the
the early washington, d.c. bahá’í community
43
University of London. Locke participated in the event. The Universal
Races Congress provided an opportunity for Locke to hear about the
Bahá’í Faith through a message that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá sent to the congress,
which was read and later published in its proceedings.
The two primary organizers of the conference were Dr. Felix Adler
(d. 1933), founder of the Ethical Culture Society, and Gustav Spiller,
who established the London Ethical Culture Movement. Locke’s
mother, Mary Locke was a disciple of Adler. The purpose of this congress was to promote greater understanding between East and West.
While British Bahá’ís participated in the event, of far greater moment
was the invitation the organizers sent to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá to speak before
the congress. Declining to do so because of the unmitigated circumstances of his imprisonment, the Bahá’í leader did send a message to
be read to the conference participants. It said, in part:
When traveling around the world we observe an air of prosperity in any
country, we find it due to the existence of love and friendship among the
people. If, on the contrary, all seems depressed and poverty-stricken, we may
feel assured that this is the effect of animosity, and of the absence of union
among the inhabitants. . . .
Rivalry between the different races of mankind was first caused by the
struggle for existence among the wild animals. This struggle is no longer
necessary: nay, rather! Interdependence and co-operation are seen to produce
the highest welfare in nations. The struggle that now continues is caused by
prejudice and bigotry.41
‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s admonition that racism must be actively transmuted into racial harmony is abundantly clear. He concludes his tablet
to the Universal Races Congress:
This Congress is one of the greatest of events. It will be forever to the glory of
England that it was established at her capital. . . . Let Brotherhood be felt and
seen among you; and carry ye its quickening power throughout the world. It
is my prayer that the work of the Congress will bear great fruit.42
The published tablet was preceded by a short introduction to the
Bahá’í Faith written by Major Wellesley Tudor-Pole.43
Locke was inspired to carry on the work of the Congress at Howard
University. “Ladies and Gentlemen: Ever since the possibility of a
comparative study of races dawned upon me at the Races Congress in
London in 1911,” Locke began the first of five historic lectures on race
44
alain locke: faith & philosophy
relations he delivered at Howard University in 1916, “I have had the
courage of a very optimistic and steadfast belief that in the scientific
approach to the race question, there was the possibility of a redemption
for those false attitudes of mind which have, unfortunately, so complicated the idea and conception of race that there are a great many people
who fancy that the best thing that can possibly be done, if possible at
all, is to throw race out of the categories of human thinking.”44
No firm conclusions can yet be drawn as to whether or not Locke
first heard of the Bahá’í Faith during the Universal Races Congress.
Had he been vigilant in attending every session, he surely would have.
While the event itself had an immediate impact on the course of his
research, his first impression of the Bahá’í message—if he had heard it
there—must have been favorable.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá in Washington, D.C. (1912): Having returned from Europe
in 1911, Locke began his academic career at Howard University on 13
September 1912, as Assistant Professor of the Teaching of English and
Instructor in Philosophy and Education under Lewis B. Moore. Locke
taught English, literature, and education in the Teachers College at
Howard University. On Moore’s retirement in 1912, Locke’s teaching
duties expanded to include ethics and logic.45
Earlier, in the spring, Locke had personally traveled with Booker
T. Washington through Florida, from March 1 to March 8. The opportunity arose when a certain Dr. S. G. Elbert cancelled.46 There is a
curious Western Union telegram from sheriff John B. Winston, sent to
the “Conductor, Seaboard Air Line Train, between River Junction and
Tallahassee,” which demands: “Is negro from Pennsylvania, answering
to name of Locke or Lacke on train. Supposed to be traveling with B.
T. Washington. Answer my expense and if found hold for this place.”47
Beyond this, the extent of Locke’s travels is unclear, but his trip probably lasted through the summer, as Jeffrey Stewart seems to indicate.
In securing his position at Howard, Locke was indebted to
Washington. In a letter dated 10 August 1912, Washington instructed
Locke: “In connection with the Howard University matter I would state
that I had a conference with Professor Kelly Miller concerning you a
few days ago, and I advise that you see him whenever it is convenient
for you to do so.”48 Locke, in an undated letter, expressed his deepest
appreciation to Washington. That letter begins with the news: “My dear
Dr Washington I was just on the point of writing you when I received
the early washington, d.c. bahá’í community
45
your kindly letter of the 12th last, Saturday the 14th I was elected an
asst Professor at Howard, in English + Philosophy.”49 What appears to
have been Locke’s actual letter of appointment was signed by George
Williams Cook, Secretary and Business Manager, who later became
professor and the first dean of the College of Commerce and Finance,
and whose wife, Coralie Franklin Cook, was a well-known Bahá’í.50
However, it was not Washington’s ideology (with which Locke, in part,
disagreed) but ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s egalitarian principles that would, six
years later, provide Locke with his philosophical framework in which
both race loyalty and integration (as distinct from the one-directional
emphasis of assimilation) had a place. In one of many commitments he
kept throughout his career, Locke served as an assistant organizer of
the Emancipation Proclamation Commission (based in Trenton, New
Jersey), which seemed to have some connection with Washington.51
‘Abdu’l-Bahá came to America in 1912. He spent 239 days in the
United States and Canada, from his arrival on 11 April to his departure
on 5 December. During his historic visit, practically his every word and
deed was recorded for posterity, and there was extensive press coverage. His anecdotal legacy within the Bahá’í community was nearly
as important as his message. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, in promoting the Bahá’í
gospel of racial unity, established his ethos by example. His very presence, in both what he said and did, had an enormous impact on the early
North American Bahá’ís. Locke would soon hear about this remarkable
man and the message to America that he brought. One of ‘Abdu’lBahá’s entourage, in a letter dated 28 September 1913, observed:
I can never forget the day in Washington, when our Beloved Abdu’l-Baha
called on the Ambassador of Turkey. He was sitting near the window, watching the number of men and women passing by. At the time a young negro as
black as coal passed by. “Did you see that young black negro?” He asked.
“Yes,” I answered. “I declare by Baha’O’llah [sic] that I wish him to become
as radiant as the shining sun which is flooding the world with its glorious
lights,” He said earnestly.52
After spending his first days in New York, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá came to
Washington, D.C. Evidently, at that time, Locke did not have the opportunity to see him. From the publicity that his visit generated, it would
be hard to imagine missing some report of it. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá arrived in
Washington on April 20, and stayed until Sunday, April 28. Toward the
end of his visit, the Washington Bee, one of the city newspapers, published a story that read, in part: “Its [the Bahá’í Faith’s] white devotees,
46
alain locke: faith & philosophy
even in this prejudice-ridden community, refuse to draw the color line.
The informal meetings, held frequently in the fashionable mansions
of the cultured society in Sheridan Circle, Dupont Circle, Connecticut
and Massachusetts avenues, have been open to Negroes on terms of
absolute equality.”53
On Tuesday morning, April 23, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá spoke in Rankin
Chapel at Howard University. Well over a thousand faculty, administrators, students, and guests54 crowded the relatively small space of this
modest chapel to hear him speak. This is how he opened his talk:
Today I am most happy, for I see here a gathering of the servants of God. I
see white and black sitting together. There are no whites and blacks before
God. All colors are one, and that is the color of servitude to God. Scent and
color are not important. The heart is important. If the heart is pure, white or
black or any color makes no difference. God does not look at colors; He looks
at the hearts. He whose heart is pure is better. He whose character is better is
more pleasing. He who turns more to the Abhá Kingdom [i.e., the kingdom of
heaven] is more advanced.
In the realm of existence colors are of no importance. Observe in the
mineral kingdom colors are not the cause of discord. In the vegetable kingdom
the colors of multicolored flowers are not the cause of discord. Rather, colors
are the cause of the adornment of the garden because a single color has no
appeal; but when you observe many-colored flowers, there is charm and
display.
The world of humanity, too, is like a garden, and humankind are like the
many-colored flowers. Therefore, different colors constitute an adornment.
In the same way, there are many colors in the realm of animals. Doves are
of many colors; nevertheless, they live in utmost harmony. They never look
at color; instead, they look at the species. How often white doves fly with
black ones. In the same way, other birds and varicolored animals never look
at color; they look at the species.
Now ponder this: Animals, despite the fact that they lack reason and
understanding, do not make colors the cause of conflict. Why should man,
who has reason, create conflict? This is wholly unworthy of him. Especially
white and black are the descendants of the same Adam; they belong to one
household. In origin they were one; they were the same color. Adam was
of one color. Eve had one color. All humanity is descended from them.
Therefore, in origin they are one. These colors developed later due to climates
and regions; they have no significance whatsoever. Therefore, today I am very
happy that white and black have gathered together in this meeting. I hope this
coming together and harmony reaches such a degree that no distinctions shall
remain between them, and they shall be together in the utmost harmony and
love.55
This part of the speech was homiletic. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá makes the point
that while in the natural world color has no intrinsic value except to
the early washington, d.c. bahá’í community
47
enrich its diversity, in the human world color had taken on huge and
determinative proportions.
The next segment of his speech is significant in that, while well
received at the time, it may be judged harshly by contemporary standards. However, time spent in contextualizing ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s remarks
will repay the effort. He went on to say:
But I wish to say one thing in order that the blacks may become grateful to the
whites and the whites become loving toward the blacks. If you go to Africa
and see the blacks of Africa, you will realize how much progress you have
made. Praise be to God! You are like the whites; there are no great distinctions
left. But the blacks of Africa are treated as servants. The first proclamation
of emancipation for the blacks was made by the whites of America. How
they fought and sacrificed until they freed the blacks! Then it spread to other
places. The blacks of Africa were in complete bondage, but your emancipation led to their freedom also—that is, the European states emulated the
Americans, and the emancipation proclamation became universal. It was for
your sake that the whites of America made such an effort. Were it not for this
effort, universal emancipation would not have been proclaimed.
Therefore, you must be very grateful to the whites of America, and the
whites must become very loving toward you so that you may progress in all
human grades. Strive jointly to make extraordinary progress and mix together
completely. In short, you must be very thankful to the whites who were the
cause of your freedom in America. Had you not been freed, other blacks
would not have been freed either. Now—praise be to God!—everyone is free
and lives in tranquility. I pray that you attain to such a degree of good character and behavior that the names of black and white shall vanish. All shall
be called human, just as the name for a flight of doves is dove. They are not
called black and white. Likewise with other birds.56
A brief look at history discloses that, while slavery caused the Civil
War, initially the war was not fought to end it. Northern Democrats,
in fact, had vigorously opposed emancipation. Prior to his decision to
issue the Proclamation, Lincoln, as an emigrationist, favored “compensated emancipation” (where slave owners would be paid for their
slaves), followed by the colonization of blacks in Central America.
Frederick Douglass accused the president of hypocrisy, saying: “This
is our country as much as it is yours, and we will not leave it.”57 While
his unwavering purpose for the Civil War was to preserve the Union,
mounting pressure from Congress and from people around the country
made Lincoln more sympathetic to abolition.
Abraham Lincoln promulgated the Emancipation Proclamation
on 1 January 1863, technically freeing slaves in those states still in
48
alain locke: faith & philosophy
rebellion. Prior to this, Lincoln had issued a Preliminary Emancipation
Proclamation on 22 September 1862, which freed no slaves whatsoever. With this advance notice, Lincoln had given the Confederate
states one hundred days in which to rejoin the Union. Had they done so,
Lincoln’s objective of preserving the Union would have been achieved
and slavery, which he was prepared to tolerate, preserved.
Although the Emancipation Proclamation was a sweeping proclamation, it was narrow in its scope. It neither applied to slaves in
Border States fighting on the Union side, nor did it affect slaves in
Southern areas already under Union control. Few slaves were, therefore, actually freed by the proclamation, and the proclamation itself did
not end slavery. This would be achieved by passage of the Thirteenth
Amendment to the Constitution on 18 December 1865. Once he had
issued the Emancipation Proclamation, however, Lincoln made it clear
to America and the world that the Civil War was now being fought to
end slavery. While the Proclamation had its limits, it was welcomed
in principle by Frederick Douglass and by all of the estimated four
million African Americans in the country. For them, New Year’s Day
had become Emancipation Day. The Proclamation gave moral authority
to the Union cause.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s observations had their basis in these later developments in the Civil War. To have dwelt on the issue of whites having
instituted slavery in the first place would have frustrated ‘Abdu’lBahá’s purpose, which was interracial reconciliation. His admonition
that blacks ought to be grateful to whites for their role in emancipation and liberation had the force of rhetoric. It was calculated to
reorient entrenched racialized attitudes. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá focused on the
consequences of the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War,
which partly set in motion a chain of events whereby other countries
eventually abolished slavery. While statements on Africa would not be
politically correct by today’s standards, his rhetorical purpose would.
To the extent that context interprets text, one can appreciate why the
audience gave ‘Abdu’l-Bahá so resounding an ovation.58 Continuing
on, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá said:
I hope that you attain to such a high degree—and this is impossible except
through love. You must try to create love between yourselves; and this love
does not come about unless you are grateful to the whites, and the whites are
loving toward you, and endeavor to promote your advancement and enhance
your honor. This will be the cause of love. Differences between black and
white will be completely obliterated; indeed, ethnic and national differences
the early washington, d.c. bahá’í community
49
will all disappear.
I am very happy to see you and thank God that this meeting is composed
of people of both races and that both are gathered in perfect love and harmony.
I hope this becomes the example of universal harmony and love until no title
remains except that of humanity. Such a title demonstrates the perfection of
the human world and is the cause of eternal glory and human happiness. I pray
that you be with one another in utmost harmony and love and strive to enable
each other to live in comfort.59
The very next night, on 24 April 1912, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá spoke at
the home of Mr. and Mrs. Andrew J. Dyer. As one of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá
translators Dr. Zia Mabsut Bagdadi (who would later serve with Locke
on Bahá’í Inter-racial Amity Committees) wrote in his diary: “In the
evening, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá addressed the white and colored believers and
their friends at the home of Mrs. Dyer, a member of the colored race.”60
Imagine the impact of the following statement on the racially mixed
audience, especially on the African Americans who were present:
This evening is very good. This evening is in reality very good. When a man
looks at a meeting like this, he is reminded of the gathering together of pearls
and rubies, diamonds and sapphires put together. How beautiful! How delightful! It is most beautiful. It is a source of joy. Whatsoever is conducive to the
unity of the world of men is most acceptable and most praiseworthy. And
whatsoever is the cause of discord in the world of humanity is saddening.61
According to Dr. Khazeh Fananapazir, the original Persian text of
this discourse cannot be found. However, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s secretary
Mahmúd Zarqání, in his diary entry for 24 April 1912, states:
‘Abdu’l-Bahá remarked: “Before I arrived, I felt too tired to speak at this
meeting. But at the sight of such genuine love and attraction between the
white and the black friends (ulfat va injizáb ahibbá-yi síyáh va sifíd), I was so
moved that I spoke with great love and likened (tashbíh namúdam) this union
of different colored races (ittihád-i alván-i mukhtalifah) to a string of gleaming pearls and rubies (la’álí va yaqút).62
‘Abdu’l-Bahá used striking imagery in comparing his audience
to pearls and rubies, sapphires and diamonds. As Bahá’í authors have
quoted him over the decades since that memorable night, these words
echo down to this day. On that night in Washington D.C., ‘Abdu’lBahá concluded his address in saying: “When the racial elements of the
American nation unite in actual fellowship and accord, the lights of the
oneness of humanity will shine, the day of eternal glory and bliss will
50
alain locke: faith & philosophy
dawn, the spirit of God encompass and the divine favors descend. . . .
This is the sign of the ‘Most Great Peace.’ “63
In the Dean’s office of Rankin Chapel, Howard University (which
I personally visited in August 2001), a “Prayer for Washington” is elegantly famed and presented on the wall. This prayer reads as follows:
O God! Grant Washington happiness and peace. Illuminate that land with the
light of the faces of the friends. Make it a paradise of glory. Let it become
an envy of the green gardens of the earth. Help the friends. Increase their
numbers. Make their hearts sources of inspiration, and their souls dawnings
of light. Thus may that city become a beautiful paradise, and fragrant with the
fragrance of musk.64
The prayer was revealed by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. The circumstances of its
revelation have not yet been established. All these events provided the
immediate background to Locke’s attraction to the Bahá’í Faith.
Divided over Integration (1914): While the visit of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was a
watershed event in American Bahá’í history, its long-term effects were
probably more profound than its short-term effects. The history of the
Washington, D.C. Bahá’í community in the aftermath of “the Master’s”
sojourn there is instructive. Around two years after ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s
departure, the situation began to revert to the pre-1910 state of affairs.
Increasingly divided on the issue of race, the Bahá’îs of Washington
had begun to split into several groups. “By 1914,” Gayle Morrison
observes, “even the pretense of unity had broken down.”65 The Bahá’í
community had broken into fractious camps.
For some years, the Bahá’í community had maintained a rented
Bahá’í at Studio Hall (1219 Connecticut Avenue). The crisis was precipitated when the community decided to give up this center, where
public lectures and smaller, informal Bahá’í “firesides” had been open
to both races. Evidently, this decision resulted from disagreements
over the propriety of interracial meetings. The controversy split the
community into three distinct groups: (1) those who felt that mixed
meetings posed a serious obstacle to the growth of the Faith; (2) those
who supported interracial events at the Bahá’í Center in the true spirit
egalitarianism; and (3) those who believed that: “Neither the centre nor
the color question retards our activity and the growth of the Cause.”66
The Bahá’í message of unity was vitiated in practice, as the Washington
community plunged itself into profound disunity.
the early washington, d.c. bahá’í community
51
On the issue of racial unity, the community had forfeited its moral
authority through compromising its core principles. The first group
held whites-only meetings in a public hall, a prestigious place that
would accommodate the conventional values of whites who supported
the status quo. The second group, which included Louis Gregory,
opposed this policy as, in the words of Edna Belmont, this was entirely
“against Abdul-Baha’s wishes & commands.”67 The third group, as
represented by Louise Boyle (a white Bahá’í) at that time, believed
that giving up the Bahá’í Center actually freed individual Bahá’ís to
live according to their consciences: “Nothing ever happened so happily
for Washington as the freeing of individuals through the abandonment
of the Center.”68
On Sundays, the Pythian Temple was the site of white Bahá’í
meetings. On Wednesdays, the “colored” meetings were held at the
Washington Conservatory of Music. And on Fridays, mixed meetings
took place in the home of a white Bahá’í. As if this was not bad enough,
a fourth group of Bahá’ís followed the openly racist views of at least
one vocal member, who became estranged from the Faith for some
time.69 In response to this grave situation, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá wrote a letter,
in Arabic, received on 1 May 1914. It read, in part, as follows:
I know about everything that is happening in Washington. The sad, sombre
news is the difference between the white and the colored people. I have
written to Mr. Hannen requesting him, if possible, to arrange a special place
of meeting for the white people only, and also a special place of meeting for
the colored people, and also one for both the white and the colored, so that
all may be free. Those who prefer to do so can go to the white meeting. And
those who prefer can go to the colored meeting, and those who do not wish
to bind themselves either way, they are free, let them go to the meetings of
the white and the colored people in one place. I can see no better solution to
this question.70
Apart from the obvious principle of freedom of religious conscience, the wisdom of this decision was the conservation of the community itself. Although it had fragmented into different parties, it had
not irretrievably shattered into competing sects. The Master’s decision
effectively suspended Bahá’í principles of racial unity in order to maintian the unity of the Bahá’í community in its struggle to adjust to racial
integration. Compromised to the agonizing dismay of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá,
the situation would have to resolve itself in time. But interracial unity
was really the only Bahá’í option in the long run. Racial division would
52
alain locke: faith & philosophy
be abandoned once the Bahá’ís themselves matured and returned to a
policy of integration, as they had done before. How could a religion
whose core principles were offended and vitiated by the recrudescence
of the very social ills it intended to eradicate survive otherwise? The
integrity of all that the fledgling Faith stood for was put to the test.
At this point, Joseph Hannen, who had previously led the teaching outreach to African Americans, was asked by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá to
arrange a new meeting for whites. Hannen chose Lewis Hall as the site
for those meetings. The moment the Wednesday-night meetings at the
Conservatory of Music were labeled “colored” meetings, the blacks
stopped attending. A meeting on T Street was organized instead. But
the mixed, Friday meetings fared no better. At last, on 14 October 1914,
representatives from each of the four meetings met to try to resolve
their differences. Although progress was made, including a renouncing
of racist views by the Pythian Temple group on October 25, the fractured state of affairs persisted well into the next year. At last, in May
1916, the Pythian Temple meetings were dissolved for the sake of preserving unity. The situation was exacerbated through the utter lack of
communication with ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, precipitated by Turkey’s entry into
World War I. Not until September 1918, when British forces entered
Haifa, was a free and steady flow of communication restored.71
Clearly, by both personal preference and professional preparation,
Locke was predisposed to accept the Bahá’í principles of race unity,
if only the Bahá’ís themselves did not pose a barrier through their
compromise of their own principles. In the midst of this turmoil, and,
remarkably, in spite of it, evidence points to Locke having been introduced to the Bahá’í Faith at around this time. It is a testament to those
Bahá’ís who were alive to the deeper social implications of the Bahá’í
principles that Locke was shielded from these internecine battles and
was exposed to Bahá’í values in a positive and relatively unadulterated
light.
Notes
1. Alain Locke, “Pluralism and Ideological Peace,” in Freedom and Experience:
Essays presented to Horace M. Kallen, ed. by Sidney Hook and Milton R. Konvitz
(Ithaca and New York: Cornell University Press, 1947) p. 67.
2. Kallen, “Alain Locke and Cultural Pluralism,” p. 121.
the early washington, d.c. bahá’í community
53
3. Jonathan Scott Holloway, Confronting the Veil, Chapter One, “Secret Sites:
Black Washington, D.C., and Howard University,” pp. 35-83, citing Constance
Green, The Secret City: A History of Race Relations in the Nation’s Capital
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967) p. 202.
4. Green, The Secret City, p. 202, citing Crisis, pp. xxxix, p. 195.
5. Fitzpatrick and Goodwin, The Guide to Black Washington, p. 158.
6. Holloway, Confronting the Veil, p. 45.
7. Fitzpatrick and Goodwin, The Guide to Black Washington, p. 101.
8. Holloway, Confronting the Veil, 49.
9. Ibid., p. 41.
10. David Krasner, A Beautiful Pageant: African American Theatre, Drama,
and Performance in the Harlem Renaissance, 1910-1927. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2002) pp. 133-34.
11. Sandra Fitzpatrick and Maria R. Goodwin, The Guide to Black Washington:
Places and Events of Historical and Cultural Significance in the Nation’s Capital.
Revised Illustrated Edition (New York: Hippocrene Books, 2001) p. 161.
12. Fitzpatrick and Goodwin, The Guide to Black Washington, p. 81.
13. Holloway, Confronting the Veil, pp. 37-45.
14. Qtd. in Holloway, Confronting the Veil, p. 44, citing Sterling Brown,
Washington, City and Capital, Federal Writers’ Project, Works Progress
Administration (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office,
1937) p. 89.
15. Qtd. in an unsigned editorial (probably by Firuz Kazemzadeh), “Interchange,”
World Order, Vol. 14, no. 1 (Fall 1979) p. 4, citing Gunnar Myrdal, An American
Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy, Reprint (Harper and Row,
1962 [1944]) page number not specified in citation.
16. The best recent academic treatments of the Bábí movement are to be found
in Abbas Amanat, Ressurrection and Renewal: The Making of the Babi Movement
in Iran, 1844-1850 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989) and in Denis
MacEoin, “From Shaykhism to Babism: A Study in Charismatic Renewal in Shí‘í
Islam,” Ph.D. dissertaion, Cambridge University, 1979 (Los Angeles: Kalimát
Press, forthcoming). The classic Bahá’í chronicle of the period is Nabíl-i A’zam’s
The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá’í Revelation,
trans. and ed. by Shoghi Effendi (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1932).
See also, H. M. Balyuzi, The Báb: The Herald of the Day of Days (Oxford:
George Ronald, 1973) and Peter Smith’s sociological study, The Babi and Bahá’í
Religions: From messianic Shi’ism to a world religion (Cambridge University
Press, 1987). The early volumes of the Studies in the Bábí and Bahá’í Religions
series (Los Angeles: Kalimát Press) are also useful.
17. See Christopher Buck, “A Unique Eschatological Interface: Bahá’u’lláh and
Cross-Cultural Messianism” in Peter Smith, ed., In Iran, Studies in Bábí and
Bahá’í History, Vol. 3 (Los Angeles: Kalimát Press, 1986) pp. 157-78.
18. For a recent academic treatment of the ministry of Bahá’u’lláh, see Juan R.
I. Cole, Modernity and the Millennium: The Genesis of the Baha’i Faith in the
Nineteenth-century Middle East (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998),
distributed by Kalimát Press as Volume Nine of the series Studies in the Bábí and
Bahá’í Religions. See also the now classic Bahá’í biography by Hasan M. Balyuzi,
Bahá’u’lláh: The King of Glory (Oxford: George Ronald, 1980).
54
alain locke: faith & philosophy
19. Recorded in ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace: Talks
Delivered by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá during His Visit to the United States and Canada in
1912, Second Edition (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1982 [1912]).
20. As listed in the popular Bahá’í pamphlet One Universal Faith (Wilmette, Ill.:
Bahá’í Publishing Trust, n.d. [1960?]). Sometimes, the last principle listed here
would be divided in two and presented as separate items: world peace and world
government. Occasionally, another principle: “Religion must be the cause of unity
and harmony,” would be added to the list. There was no hard and absolute list of
these principles, though all Bahá’ís would have recognized that there was such a
list and could have recited at least four or five principles by heart.
21. Stockman, The Bahá’í Faith in America: Early Expansion, Chapter 16, “New
England and Washington DC,” pp. 217-31.
22. Robert Stockman, The Bahá’í Faith in America: Early Expansion 1900-1912
(Oxford: George Ronald, 1995) p. 224.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid., p. 225, quoting Bahá’u’lláh, The Hidden Words, Arabic no. 68.
25. Ibid, pp. 225-26.
26. Pauline Hannen to Mirza Ahmad Sohrab, (handwritten), May 1909, Ahmad
Sohrab Papers, NBA. Courtesy of Roger M. Dahl, Archivist, National Bahá’í
Archives, Bahá’í National Center, Wilmette, Ill, enclosure sent 2 July 2002.
27. Ibid.
28. The Nineteen-Day Feast is part of the Bahá’í worship cycle, based on a spiritual calendar consisting of 19 months of 19 days each, with each day (and each
weekday), month, year, and cyle of years named after attributes of God (such
as honor, grandeur, knowledge, etc.) that function as human perfections which
Bahá’ís seek to embody. Bahá’í communities thus hold a Nineteen-Day Feast once
every Bahá’í month. The Nineteen-Day Feast consists of three parts: devotional,
consultative, and social.
29. Jos. H. Hannen, “Washington, D. C.,” Bahai News, Vol. 1, no.1 (21 March
1910) pp. 18-19, quoted in Morrison, To Move the World, p. 33.
30. Stockman, The Bahá’í Faith in America: Early Expansion, p. 34.
31. Morrison, To Move the World, p. 73.
32. Stockman, The Bahá’í Faith in America: Early Expansion, p. 344.
33. Morrison, To Move the World, p. 31.
34. Ibid., pp. 5-6.
35. Fádil Mázandarání, Taríkh-i Zuhur al-Haqq, Vol. 8, part 2 (Tehran: Bahá’í
Publishing Trust, 132 B.E.) p. 1209.
36. From a tablet of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, translated from the Persian, in Women (Bahá’í
compilation) p. 4.
37. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 113 (sec. 76);
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Múntakhabátí az Makátib-i Hadrat-i ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Vol. 1, sec. 76.
Gloss on original Arabic text provided by Vahid Brown, personal communication,
3 January 2004.
38. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 114 (sec. 78);
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Múntakhabátí az Makátib-i Hadrat-i ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Vol. 1, sec. 78.
Gloss on original Persian text provided by Vahid Brown, personal communication,
3 January 2004.
the early washington, d.c. bahá’í community
55
39. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, trans. by Shoghi Effendi in The Advent of Divine Justice
(Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1969 [1939]) p. 31.
40. Richard Thomas, Understanding Interracial Unity: A Study of U.S. Race
Relations, Sage Series on Race and Ethnic Relations, Vol. 16 (Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, 1996) p. 47.
41. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, “Letter From ‘Abdu’l-Bahá to the First Universal Races
Congress,” Star of the West, Vol. 2, no. 9 (20 August 1911) p. 5. Reprinted from
Record of the Proceedings of the First Universal Races Congress (Orchard House,
Westminster: P. S. King and Son, 1911) advance prepublication copy. See also
Papers on Interracial Problems Communicated to the First Universal Races
Congress Held at the University of London, July 26-29, 1911, ed. by Gustav Spiller
(Boston: Ginn and Co., 1912). Reprint: Universal Races Congress, Inter-racial
Problems: Papers, ed. by G. Spiller. With a new introduction by Herbert Aptheker
(New York: Citadel Press, 1970).
42. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, “Letter […] to the First Universal Races Congress,” p. 6.
43. Wellesley Tudor-Pole, “The Bahai Movement,” Star of the West, Vol. 2, no.
9 (20 August 1911) pp. 4-5. This is preceded by Tudor-Pole, “The First Universal
Races Congress,” Star of the West, Vol. 2, no. 9 (20 August 1911) pp. 3-4.
Reprinted from the Christian Commonwealth, 2 August 1911. See also Paul Rich,
“ ‘The Baptism of a New Era’: The 1911 Universal Races Congress and the Liberal
Ideology of Race” Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol.7, no. 4 (1984) pp. 534-50; and
Robert John Holton, “Cosmopolitanism or Cosmopolitanisms: the Universal Races
Congress of 1911,” Global Networks, forthcoming.
44. Alain Locke, Race Contacts and Interracial Relations, ed. by Jeffery C.
Stewart (Washington: Howard University Press, 1992) p. 1.
45. Harris, “Chronology,” The Philosophy of Alain Locke, p. 294.
46. Washington to Locke, undated letter, in which he writes: “My dear Doctor
Washington, I am in receipt this evening of your kind permission to take Doctor
Elbert’s place in your party through Florida March 1st to 8th.” See also Washington
to Elbert, 26 Februaru 1912 (cablegram), Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 16491, Folder 55 (Washington, Booker T.); Stewart, “Introduction,” in Locke, Race
Contacts and Interracial Relations, p. xxxix.
47. Winston to Conductor (cablegram), 2 March 1912, Alain Locke Papers,
MSRC, Box 164-91, Folder 55 (Washington, Booker T.).
48. Washington to Locke, 10 August 1912, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 16491, Folder 55 (Washington, Booker T.).
49. Locke to Washington, undated letter [July 1912?], Alain Locke Papers,
MSRC, Box 164-91, Folder 55 (Washington, Booker T.).
50. Cook to Locke, 17 July 1912, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC,Box 164-21,
Folder 46 (Cook, George William). That this letter of appointment was actually
intended for Locke is complicated by the fact that the letter ostensibly appears to
be addressed to a “Mr. E. C. Williams, Principal, M Street High School, Bowen
Cottage, Arundel-on-the-Bay, Md.” The letter begins, “Dear Sir:-”. Could it be that
this was Locke’s place of employment prior to taking his position at Howard?
51. Locke to Washington, undated letter [1912], Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box
164-91, Folder 55 (Washington, Booker T.).
52. Qtd. in an untitled compilation of Bahá’í writings on race unity. Typescript in
56
alain locke: faith & philosophy
Locke’s possession. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-176, Folder 13 (Bahá’í
Faith).
53. Qtd. in Allan L. Ward, 239 Days: ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Journey in America
(Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1979) p. 37.
54. Ward, 239 Days, p. 40.
55. “23 April 1912. Talk at Howard University. Washington, D. C. Translated by
Amin Banani,” in ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 43.
56. Ibid.
57. Qtd. in Darlene Clark Hine, William C. Hine, and Stanley Harrold, eds., The
African-American Odyssey (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000) p. 234.
58. Ward, 239 Days, p. 40.
59. The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 43.
60. Zia Bagdadi, “ ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in America,” Star of the West, Vol. 19, no. 3
(June 1928) p. 89. Qtd. in Ward, 239 Days, p. 43.
61. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, “Address of Abdu’l-Bahá at the Home of Mrs. Dyer, April 24,
1912, 9 p.m.” Translated by Dr. Ameen U. Fareed and taken stenographically by
Joseph H. Hannen in Star of the West Vol. 3, no. 3 (28 April 1912) p. 21. Reference
courtesy of Sen McGlinn.
62. Mahmúd’s Diary. Translated by M. Sobhani (Oxford: George Ronald, 1998),
p. 57 (under the diary page for Wednesday, 24 April 1912). Transliteration based
on notes by Dr. Khazeh Fananapazir, posting on the Tarjuman translation list, 10
May 2002, based on Mírzá Mahmúd Zarqání, Badá-yi al-Áthár, vol. 1, pp. 48-49,
Reprint of the Bombay 1914 edition (Langenhain: Bahá’í Verlag, 1982).
63. Ward, 239 Days, p. 43, quoting Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 54.
64. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, “Prayer for Washington,” n.p., n.d. Personally given to the
author by the staff of Rankin Chapel on 9 August 2001.
65. Morrison, To Move the World, p. 73.
66. Boyle to Parsons, 18 February 1914, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA. Qtd. in
Morrison, To Move the World, p. 74.
67. Edna Belmont to Parsons, 2 March 1914, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA. Qtd.
in Morrison, To Move the World, p. 74.
68. Boyle to Parsons, 18 February 1914, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA. Qtd. in
Morrison, To Move the World, p. 74.
69. Morrison, To Move the World, p. 74.
70. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá to Edna Belmont, received 1 May 1914, Agnes Parsons Papers,
NBA. Provsional translation, quoted in Morrison, To Move the World, pp. 75-76.
71. Morrison, To Move the World, pp. 75-80.
BAHÁ’Í HISTORICAL RECORD CARD, 1935
National Bahá’í Archives, Wilmmette, Illinois
Chapter Four
Conversion
The starting place for a discussion of Locke’s first experiences with the
Bahá’í Faith—then known as the “Bahá’í Cause”—is difficult to definitely locate. But it makes the most sense to begin where the evidence
suggests his first contact with the Bahá’ís occurred.
Locke’s First Encounter with the Bahá’í Faith? (1915): Although a
philosopher by training, Locke did not have an opportunity to teach
philosophy professionally until 1915. There were “practical” demands
on him at Howard University. It was at this time that Locke had his
first serious problem with Howard’s all-white senior administrators.
In the spring of 1915, Locke proposed a course on “inter-racial relations,” with the goal of bringing the scientific study of race to bear on
racial pseudo-science and the racial prejudice it buttressed, as well as
demonstrating the potential impact that American anthropology could
have on positive race relations. His rationale for the proposed course
was that “a study of race contacts is the only scientific basis for the
comprehension of race relations.”1 Locke sent a copy of his proposal
to Booker T. Washington.2
The proposal was roundly rejected by Howard University’s Board
of Trustees on 1 June 1915. The all-white ministers felt that such “controversial” subjects as race had no place at a school whose mission
was to educate black professionals. Moreover, Howard was supposed
to be, in some sense, a “nonracial” institution.3 Locke eventually succeeded in delivering his lectures as public lectures, since the classroom
59
60
alain locke: faith & philosophy
was closed to him on this topic. Sponsored by the Howard Chapter of
the NAACP and the Social Science Club, Locke taught an extension
course, first in 1915 and then in 1916. The 1915 lectures were newsworthy. In a letter dated 18 May 1915, W. E. B. Du Bois wrote Locke
to say: “We are mentioning the lectures in the CRISIS this month.”4
Since the 1916 lectures are better documented, a description of them
will be undertaken below.
The Bahá’í Faith was widely known among the black intelligentsia
during this period, and Locke could have been introduced to it by any
number of people.5 It is quite possible that Locke came into contact
with the Faith through W. E. B. Du Bois, who had personally met
‘Abdu’l-Bahá and had lectured at Green Acre (a Bahá’í school in southern Maine) as well. It is just as likely that Locke encountered the Faith
through Louis Gregory, or through one of the other Bahá’ís or friends
of the Faith from among the circle of educated African Americans in
Washington, D.C. Or perhaps it was through Mariam Haney.
There is evidence to suggest that Alain Locke attended his first
Bahá’í fireside in 1915. This may be deduced from a letter written by
Mariam Haney to “My dear Mr. Locke,” in which she urges Locke
to attend a meeting at which he would meet Harlan and Grace Ober.
Mariam Haney prevails upon Locke to consider attending, not only for
his sake, but for hers and for the benefit of other Bahá’ís as well, as
Locke would grace them with his presence:
1791 Lanier Pl. N.W.
Washington, D.C.
My dear Mr. Locke:—
My friends write me that you have never been to see them. I really was
quite surprised, for my first thought about it all was that you would be rendering them a service. If you ever go once, I know you will want to go again,
even if this first time I should ask you to go just to please me!
I have your interests at heart and theirs as well, so you can gather why
I should be anxious for a meeting between you. Through Mr. and Mrs. Ober,
you would meet—(if you cared to) some very lovely people, and I should feel
proud to have them know you.
I do hope your health is good, and that you are not over-working on the
subjects pertaining to the here and now.
What the world needs most is the actual living of Brotherhood—and
beside this or in comparison—all else pales into insignificance. Don’t you
think so?
conversion
61
With kind greetings
Most cordially yours —
Mariam Haney
February XV6
One cannot fail to be struck by the graciousness of the invitation.
Evidently, this was not the first, because Mariam Haney registers her
surprise that Locke has not yet gone to a meeting where he could meet
the Obers. (It is not known if the Obers were residing in Washington at
that time or merely visiting.) Whether or not he could see through her
persuasive ploy, in which she asked him to attend as a personal favor to
herself and her fellow Bahá’ís, it is probable that Locke went.
Harlan Ober (1881-1962) was a graduate of Harvard University.
He also earned a law degree from Northeastern University in Boston.7
In 1905, at the Green Acre conference center in Eliot, Maine, Ober had
declared himself a Bahá’í.8 At the request of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Ober traveled to India, Burma, and the Middle East as part of an international
team of Bahá’ís whose mission was to teach the Bahá’í Faith.9 In
1912, Ober had taught the faith to African American William Gibson.
He embraced the Faith only five minutes after hearing Ober speak.
Deborah Gibson, his wife, also accepted the Faith that same night,
convinced.10 After the “Red Summer” of 1919 (in which race riots
erupted in Chicago and Elaine, Arkansas, as well as two days of rioting
in Washington, D.C.), Ober recommended in a circular letter that the
Bahá’ís organize special meetings on race relations.11
As far as Locke’s subsequent contacts with the Bahá’í Faith are
concerned, what happened in the years between 1915 and 1918 is still
a mystery. But there is some record of continued interaction between
Locke and his Bahá’í friends.
Locke’s Lectures on Race Relations (1916): The Howard chapter of the
NAACP and the Social Science Club sponsored a two-year extension
course of public lectures, which Locke called, “Race Contacts and
Inter-Racial Relations: A Study in the Theory and Practice of Race.”12
As the focus of his lectures, Locke’s social conception of race represented a further development of the thought of cultural anthropologist
Franz Boas. Locke viewed Boas, the acknowledged father of American
anthropology,13 as a “major prophet of democracy.”14
62
alain locke: faith & philosophy
Boas, who had significant contacts with Bahá’ís, effectively deconstructed the so-called “scientific racism” so prevalent at that time. He
was widely regarded by intellectual historians as one who “did more to
combat race prejudice than any other person in history.”15 Boas convincingly exploded the myth that race had any real basis in scientific
fact. Racism was biological nonsense. Cultural anthropology sought to
establish culture—as opposed to pseudo-scientific fictions of race—as a
“central social science paradigm.”16 Locke began his lectures by asserting Boas’s distinction between racial difference and racial inequality.
Racial difference is biological; racial inequality is social.17
Locke himself had a three-tiered conception of race: theoretical,
practical, and social.18 Like Boas, Locke held that race has no biological significance. At best, it is a social construct that can serve to enhance
group identity. At worst, race can be used as a tool of oppression.
Indeed, Locke foresaw the “ultimate biological destiny of the human
stock” as mulatto, or mixed, “like rum in the punch.”19 Sadly, Locke’s
lectures had no influence on his philosophical contemporaries.20
Mariam Haney kept in touch with Locke. She must have been his
primary, if not his sole contact with the Washington Bahá’ís. In an
letter that must have been written in 1916, she writes: “Just now I am
sending you this brief note that you may have my expression of deep
regret because I have been unable, thus far, to attend your lectures.”21
Towards the end of her letter, she promises Locke: “I realize that I have
missed much in not being with you all on Monday evenings, for I know
I should have received an added valuable knowledge. I am planning
to attend the remainder of your lectures.”22 The series of five lectures
began on the last Monday of March, and continued to be held on every
Monday night through April. 23 According to Jeffrey Stewart, “Locke’s
lectures laid out his new sociological theory that race was not a biological but a historical phenomenon.”24 While Locke was introducing this
new theory, new ideas were being introduced to him.
On 14 May 1916, Mary Locke wrote to her son, evidently about
his spiritual search. After telling Alain that she had recently been to a
meeting of the “brethren” (Quakers), she urged him: “You had better
make up your mind to become a Methodist—They are certainly loyal
to you—I heard your praises sung—by several of them.”25 As Locke’s
mother was his confidant, by virtue of their close relationship, she must
have learned about Locke’s investigation of the Bahá’í Faith at some
point between 1915 and 1918. She would play a crucial role in Locke’s
conversion
63
future Bahá’í affiliation.
In a letter dated 17 May 1916, Du Bois wrote Locke to ask: “I
understand that there are possibilities of your getting your Ph.D. this
year. Is this true?”26 This would indeed become true, soon enough.
And, making his year at Harvard all the more possible, the Howard
University Board of Trustees, in a letter dated 13 June 1916 and signed
by George William Cook, stated: “I have the honor to announce that
at the annual meeting of the Board of Trustees of Howard University
held June 6, 1916, your request for a year’s leave of absence in order
to complete the residence requirements of Harvard University for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy was granted.”27
Harvard Dissertation (1917): During the 1916-1917 academic year,
Locke was away from Howard on sabbatical, writing his dissertation
for his Ph.D. in Philosophy from Harvard. Undoubtedly, that afforded
him little or no time to further investigate the Bahá’í Faith. It was on
his return to Washington, D.C. that he would seriously reconsider the
Bahá’í religion as an option.
Locke’s Conversion to the Bahá’í Faith (1918): Previous scholarship
had been at a loss to establish the precise date when Locke embraced
the Bahá’í Faith. Bahá’ís had assumed that this happened during the
early 1920s, although documentary evidence was lacking. Non-Bahá’í
scholars had reached the same conclusion. In his Yale dissertation on
Locke, Jeffrey Stewart writes: “In the 1920s, Locke joined the Bahai
movement and formalized his separation from orthodox Christianity.”28
Stewart cites two letters from Locke to Mrs. Charlotte (R. Osgood)
Mason (d. 1944), dated 12 April 1936 and 26 July 1932, the latter being
on the tenth anniversary of his mother’s death.29 Locke wrote:
Again this year I write you a letter on July 26th, mother’s anniversary. It is
most appropriate,—for you have continued the work she began, and more
and more I associate these two dearest and best creative forces in my life.
Only it seems to have taken so long to bring me to anything like spiritual
maturity—long after I thought it achieved, you showed me how much still
was to be done. . . . Mother blesses you from beyond for what you have done
for “her little boy.”30
Locke’s reference to “spiritual maturity” suggests that he may be referring to his Bahá’í affiliation. But, there is a problem with the documentation. I obtained copies of these two letters from Howard University
64
alain locke: faith & philosophy
and found absolutely no mention of the Bahá’í Faith in them. There are
other statements of interest. On page two, for instance, Locke writes:
“That is why I am getting so impatient with all this fog in both the white
and the black world. For brief moments I can see through it—but then
there it is—all around us—and almost every last one of us groping.”31
Locke’s 26 July 1932 letter also makes no mention of the Bahá’í
religion, and so Stewart’s citation is in error. The same applies to
Stewart’s other citation as evidence for Locke’s conversion—the letter
dated 12 April 1936. In this letter, which Locke mistakenly dates “April
12, 1934,” again there is absolutely no reference to the Bahá’í Faith.32
My speculation at this point is that the letters in question are possibly
to be dated 26 July 1922 and 12 April 1926.
Since formal enrollment procedures did not exist at that time,
no contemporary Bahá’í archival record of the exact date of Locke’s
conversion has yet been found. The academic and religious literature
on Locke could, therefore, only speculate as to the date of his conversion, which had even been the subject of some doubt (outside of
Bahá’í circles). But in the course of my research and at my request, the
National Bahá’í Archives discovered the evidence scholars had been
looking for: a “Bahá’í Historical Record”33 card which Locke had
filled out in 1935, at the request of the National Spiritual Assembly,
which, conducting its Bahá’í census, had mailed the forms in triplicate
to all Bahá’ís in the country.34
Locke was one of seven black respondents from the Washington,
D.C. Bahá’í community to complete the card.35 Locke personally
completed and signed the card, “Alain Leroy Locke” (in the space
designated, “19. Signature”). Under item #13, “Date of acceptance of
the Bahá’í Faith,” Locke entered the year “1918.” In “Place of acceptance of Bahá’í Faith” is entered “Washington, D.C.”36 This date is
significant in that it predates previous estimates that had placed Locke’s
conversion in the early 1920s.37 The discovery of Locke’s Bahá’í
Historical Record card confirms what was already evident from a host
of other sources. (Those sources, however, failed to pinpoint the date of
Locke’s conversion.) As previously indicated, the card does not, shed
any light on the precise circumstances of his conversion.
The discovery of the date of Locke’s conversion does not throw any
light on the next two years of Locke’s activities as a Bahá’í. It was the
usual practice at that time for new believers to write to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá
in the Holy Land. Indeed, there is indirect evidence that Locke, follow-
conversion
65
ing his conversion, did so. That same evidence points to the existence
of a tablet that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá revealed in reply to Locke’s letter. Such
evidence rests on the testimony of Louis Gregory who, in 1933, wrote:
“It is to be hoped that the friends both locally and nationally, will
largely make use of the great powers of Dr. Locke both in the teaching
and administrative fields of the Cause. He has made the pilgrimage to
Haifa. The Master in a tablet praised him highly and it is known that the
Guardian shares this love for our able brother.”38 In the Alain Locke
Papers, I did discover a tablet, dated 1919, from ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, but its
recipient was someone other than Locke himself.39 To date, the tablet
to Locke has not been found.
Curiously, Locke’s name does not appear on an October 1920 list
of the Washington, D.C. Bahá’ís.40 But his name does appear in at least
twenty subsequent lists, from March 1922 to 1951, showing a Bahá’í
affiliation of at least thirty consecutive years,40 or thirty-four years
dating back to 1918, and probably thirty-seven years until his death in
1954. But the nature of his relationship to the Bahá’í Faith at the end
of his life is also unclear. In July 1953, Locke moved to New York, and
there is no record of his contact with the Bahá’í community there.
Notes
1. Qtd. in Winston, “Locke, Alain LeRoy,” p. 399.
2. Washington to Locke, 6 May 1915, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-91,
Folder 55 (Washington, Booker T.).
3. Winston, “Locke, Alain Leroy,” p. 399.
4. Du Bois to Locke, 18 May 1915, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-26,
Folder 8 (Du Bois, W. E. B. 1921-1929).
5. My thanks to Gayle Morrison for suggesting these possibilities.
6. Haney to Locke, February 1915, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-33,
Folder 49 (Haney, Mariam).
7. Elizabeth Kidder Ober, Matthew W. Bullock, and Beatrice Ashton, “Harlan
Foster Ober 1881-1962” (In Memoriam) in The Bahá’í World: An International
Record, Vol. 13, 1954-1963 (Haifa: The Universal House of Justice, 1970) p.
866.
8. Stockman, The Bahá’í Faith in America: Early Expansion, 1900-1912, pp.
218-19.
9. Ibid., p. 217; pp. 266-71.
10. Richard N. Francis, “Excerpts from the lives of early believers on teaching the
Bahá’i Faith. Amoz Everett Gibson, first black member of the Universal House of
Justice,” www.bci.org/reno/gibson.htm. See “In Memoriam,” The Bahá’i World,
Vol. 18, p. 666.
66
alain locke: faith & philosophy
11. Morrison, To Move the World, p. 131.
12. Menand, The Metaphysical Club, p. 396 and Harris, Philosophy of Alain
Locke, p. 205. These lectures were later edited and published as Alain Locke,
Race Contacts and Interracial Relations, ed. by Jeffery C. Stewart (Washington:
Howard University Press, 1992).
13. Jeffrey Stewart, ed., “Introduction,” in Alain Locke, Race Contacts and
Interracial Relations, p. xxxiii.
14. See Alain Locke, “Major Prophet of Democracy.” Review of Race and
Democratic Society by Franz Boas, Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 15, no. 2
(Spring 1946) pp. 191-92. See also Mark Helbling, “Feeling Universality and
Thinking Particularistically: Alain Locke, Franz Boas, Melville Herkskovits, and
the Harlem Renaissance,” Prospects, Vol. 19 (1994) pp. 289-314.
15. Cited by Peggy Pascoe, “Miscegenation Law, Court Cases, and Ideologies of
‘Race’ in Twentieth-Century America,” Journal of American History, Vol. 83, no. 1
(June 1996) p. 53, n. 23.
16. Pascoe, “Miscegenation Law,” p. 53.
17. Menand, The Metaphysical Club, pp. 396-97.
18. Fraser, “Another Pragmatism,” p. 7.
19. “The Negro’s Contribution to American Culture,” Journal of Negro Education,
Vol. 8 (July 1939) pp. 521-39, reprinted in Jeffrey C. Stewart, ed., The Critical
Temper of Alain Locke: A Selection of His Essays on Art and Culture (New York:
Garland, 1983) and quoted in Tommy Lee Lott, “Nationalism and Pluralism in
Alain Locke’s Social Philosophy,” in Lawrence Foster and Patricia Herzog, eds.,
Defending Diversity: Contemporary Philosophical Perspectives on Pluralism and
Multiculturalism (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1994) p. 106.
20. Fraser, “Another Pragmatism,” p. 17.
21. Haney to Locke, 1916, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-33, Folder 49
(Haney, Mariam).
22. Haney to Locke, April 1916, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-33, Folder
49 (Haney, Mariam).
23. Stewart, “Introduction,” in Locke, Race Contacts and Interracial Relations,
xix.
24. Ibid., p. xx.
25. Mary Locke to Alain Locke, 14 May 1916, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box
164-65, Folder 21 (p. 5).
26. Du Bois to Locke, 17 May 1916, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-26,
Folder 8 (Du Bois, W. E. B. 1921-1929).
27. Cook to Locke, 13 June 1916, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC,Box 164-21, Folder
46 (Cook, George William).
28. Stewart, A Biography of Alain Locke, p. 22.
29. Ibid., p. 22, n. 30: “Locke to Mason, 4/12/36, 7/26/32, Gen. Corr., ALP, MSC,
HU.” These letters would now be catalogued as: (1) Locke to Mason, 12 April
1936, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-71, Folder 9 (February-May 1936);
and (3) Locke to Mason, 26 July 1932, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-70,
Folder 1 (July 1932).
30. Locke to Mason, 26 July 1932, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-70,
Folder 1 (July 1932), qtd. by Stewart, A Biography of Alain Locke, p. 341.
31. Locke to Mason, 26 July 1932, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-70,
conversion
67
Folder 1 (July 1932) p. 2.
32. Locke to Mason, 12 April 1936, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-71,
Folder 9 (February-May 1936) p. 1.
33. The date, “1918,” given in the table compiled by Morrison, To Move the
World, p. 204, is almost certainly based on the personal data Locke provided.
34. On the Bahá’í Historical Record cards, see Stockman, The Bahá’í Faith in
America: Early Expansion, 1900-1912, p. 412; and “Bahá’í Historical Record,”
Bahá’í News, No. 94 (August 1935) p. 2. The Historical Record Cards have been
available to researchers for some time, however, Locke’s card has only recently
been discovered, at least insofar as it relates to this historical question.
35. Gayle Morrison, To Move the World, “Table. Information about 99 black
respondents among 1,1813 Bahá’ís surveyed, 1935-c. 1937, from Bahá’í Historical
Record Cards in the National Bahá’í Archives, Wilmette, Illinois,” p. 204.
36. Bahá’í Historical Record Cards Collection, and Biographical Information
Collection, NBA. Locke received three copies of this form from Joseph F. Harley,
III, secretary of the Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Washington, D.C. Harley
to Locke, 27 August 1935, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-176, Folder 13
(Bahá’í Faith).
37. See Charlotte Linfoot, “Alain LeRoy Locke, 1886-1954” in The Bahá’í
World: An International Record, Vol. 8, 1954-1963 (Haifa: Universal House of
Justice, [1970] 1980) pp. 894-95. In this obituary, Linfoot states: “In the early
1920s Dr. Locke came into contact with the Bahá’í Faith in Washington, DC” (p.
895).
38. Louis Gregory (on behalf of the National Bahá’í Committee for Racial
Amity), “Inter-Racial Amity Activities,” Bahá’í News, No. 72 (April 1933) p. 6.
39. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-98, Folder 11: Illegible (Italian/Farsi)
40. Roger Dahl, Archivist, National Bahá’í Archives, letter to Buck, 16 February
2001.
41. Office of the Secretary Records, Bahá’í Membership Lists Files, Bahá’í
National Center. These lists include: March 1922; September 1925; 1928-1929
(appears to be updated by hand and written over the typewritten 1927-1928 list);
14 January 1934; 22 January 1936; 1937; January 1938; 11 January 1939; 1940;
1941; 1942; 15 January 1943; 1944; 1945; 1946; 1947; 1948; 1949; 1950; 1951.
Courtesy of Roger M. Dahl, Archivist, National Bahá’í Archives.
CONVENTION FOR AMITY
between the White and Colored Races in America,
Springfield, Massachusetts, December 5-6, 1921.
Chapter Five
Race Amity
A meeting such as this seems like a beautiful cluster of precious jewels—
pearls, rubies, diamonds, sapphires. It is a source of joy and delight. . . .
In the clustered jewels of the races[,] may the blacks be as sapphires and
rubies and the whites as diamonds and pearls.”
—‘Abdu’l-Bahá1
Prominent Washington activist and civic leader Henry Edwin Baker
(1859-1928), a distinguished graduate (1881) of the Howard University’s
law school, expressed the hope that many African Americans held for
Locke as a “race man.” In an undated letter (probably written in the
early 1920s), Baker wrote to Locke: “I am expecting great things of
the young colored men who, like yourself, will, in increasing numbers,
in the future, have the opportunity for the breadth of culture that alone
can command the attention of the world’s thinkers, For, after all, it is
the thinkers of the world who lead.”2
Locke was indeed such a “thinker”—a race leader in his own right.
But he also served as a leader in a grand social experiment, known
as “race amity,” a term that American Bahá’ís used to describe their
public campaign to promote interracial unity. Their effort to bridge
America’s racial divide stands as one of the most visionary, and yet
pragmatic, efforts by any American group or faith community to bring
about racial healing and justice. Locke was part of this audacious initiative. Of course, though the Bahá’ís had limited success at the time,
racial unity was really quite impossible on a national scale during the
69
70
alain locke: faith & philosophy
Jim Crow era.
Jim Crow laws were late nineteenth-century statutes passed
by Southern states that codified and institutionalized an American
system of racial separation. In 1883, the Supreme Court declared the
Civil Rights Act of 1875 unconstitutional, reflecting the widespread
white-supremacist attitudes of the day and effectively demolishing the
foundations of post-Civil War Reconstruction. In 1896, the high court
promulgated the “separate but equal doctrine” in Plessy v. Ferguson,
resulting in a profusion of Jim Crow laws. By 1914, every Southern
state had established two separate societies—one white, one “colored.”
Segregation was enforced by law, with separate facilities in virtually
every sector of civil society—in schools, streetcars, restaurants, health
care institutions, and cemeteries. In 1954, this racial caste system was
successfully challenged in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka,
Kansas, which declared segregation in the public schools unconstitutional. The Jim Crow system was finally dismantled by civil rights
legislation during 1964-1968.
More than progressive, Bahá’í “race amity” initiatives were quite
radical by the standards of their day. Such efforts were by no means
exclusive. The Quakers (Society of Friends), for instance, held a
Conference on Inter-racial Justice on 24 October 1924, one day after
the fourth Bahá’í Race Amity convention was held in Philadelphia.3
Bahá’ís were nonetheless clearly in the forefront of race relations
endeavors. They supported similar efforts by the NAACP and the
National Urban League, the Quakers, and others. This Bahá’í activism
had a “leavening” effect. Its full impact is impossible to determine,
and it is further complicated by the fact that historians have virtually
ignored what the Bahá’ís were doing. These early race-relations initiatives were part of a social evolution (some might say revolution) that
historians will come to recognize as a minor but significant milestone
in American social history.
The Bahá’í “race amity” era lasted from 1921-1936, followed by
the “race unity” period of 1939-1947. A whole range of race-relations
initiatives (such as the celebration of “Race Unity Day”) have been
experimented with down to the present. The contemporary Bahá’í statement, “The Vision of Race Unity” (1991),4 together with the video,
“The Power of Race Unity,” have their roots in early Bahá’í race initiatives in which Locke played an important role. This study seeks to
“connect” Locke’s secular race-relations efforts with his Bahá’í activi-
race amity
71
ties and to show the dynamic interplay between Locke’s philosophy
(as a cultural pluralist) and his faith (as a Bahá’í integrationist). This
can best be demonstrated by illustrating Locke’s role in early Bahá’í
race-amity endeavors, with special attention paid to his Bahá’í essays
and speeches.
The Bahá’í race-amity initiatives were critical in the internal development of the American Bahá’í community. The full implications of
Bahá’í egalitarian principles had not yet been universally realized. A
number of Bahá’ís were not ready for the personal and social transformation that full racial integration would require. While some gave
intellectual assent to Bahá’í principles of interracial unity, not all were
prepared to see these universalisms translated into everyday life.
Other Bahá’ís, who realized the social implications and imperatives of the Bahá’í social teachings, had a wider scope. Alain Locke
was one of the Bahá’ís who grasped the “full picture.” He himself had
to deal with intransigence to social transformation within the Bahá’í
community. He was one of the key African American Bahá’ís who,
together with Louis Gregory and others, practiced their faith in a real
and pragmatic way by putting the Bahá’í vision of ideal race relations
into practice.
Within fledgling American Bahá’í communities across the nation—
and in Washington, D.C. in particular—these internal and, at times,
fractious struggles over how best to implement Bahá’í teachings on
race relations can be seen as the growing pains of a new social movement in American history. To be a Bahá’í in a public and demonstrable
way was no easy task. And to advocate principles of interracial unity,
including interracial marriage, during the Jim Crow era was as courageous as it was exceptional.
Once he had converted to the Bahá’í Faith in 1918, Locke exemplified his commitment to what he would later call a “racial democracy,”
which in turn would promote a “spiritual democracy,” ultimately
leading to a “world democracy.” While Locke, in his youth, had been
relatively untarnished by racial prejudice in America, he would experience the pain of prejudice as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford. Later, on
returning to the United States in 1911, Locke would taste first-hand
the bitterness and alacrity of the racialized Deep South. There were
moments during Locke’s travels with Booker T. Washington when
he literally feared for his life. In 1915, the year that he first seriously
investigated the Bahá’í Faith, Locke would be introduced to a vision of
72
alain locke: faith & philosophy
America and of the world that was the very antithesis of Jim Crow. The
Bahá’í vision of race amity catalyzed Locke’s own highly articulate
advocacy of racial justice and improved race relations, as demonstrated
in his brilliant series of lectures on race relations in 1916.5
In Locke’s philosophy of democracy, if America could transform
its racial injustice into racial equality, America would then have the
moral basis to fulfill its world role as a spiritual leader. It was in this
sense that the Bahá’í Faith, a transplanted religion with Middle Eastern
origins, was more true to American ideals than was America itself.
What the Bahá’ís did religiously was what Locke did in secular terms.
Some of the leading biographers of Locke have given us only a
sketchy picture of Locke’s activities as a Bahá’í. Much of the reason
for this is that the Bahá’ís themselves have written little or nothing on
Locke’s Bahá’í life. Gayle Morrison broke new ground in 1982, with
her masterful biography of Louis Gregory, an African American lawyer
from Washington, D.C. who became one of the most important Bahá’í
teachers in the twentieth century.6 In effect, Morrison reconstructed the
history of Bahá’í “race amity” and “race unity” initiatives, providing
valuable information on Locke’s participation and behind-the-scenes
leadership.
Locke’s years of Bahá’í service spanned over three decades. With
the major exception of Locke’s Bahá’í World essays and his editorial work for the Faith, Locke’s contributions were primarily associated with Bahá’í efforts to promote “race amity.” The services Locke
rendered came at a critical juncture in Bahá’í development. With all
of the vicissitudes the early Bahá’í community experienced, Locke
maintained his active and personal commitment to the noble ideals of
his chosen faith. There were, at the same time, periods of inactivity in
which Locke distanced himself from the Bahá’ís—and from the local
Washington Bahá’í community in particular. But this fact does not
detract from the sporadic intensity of his efforts. And although he studiously avoided Bahá’í references in his professional life, Locke’s Bahá’í
World essays served as his public testimony of faith as a Bahá’í.
Locke served on several Bahá’í race amity committees and took
part in a number of race amity conferences and other Bahá’í-sponsored
events. The first four race amity conventions were held in these cities:
(1) Washington, D.C. (19-21 May 1921); (2) Springfield, Massa-chusetts (5-6 December 1921); (3) New York (28-30 March 1924); and (4)
Philadelphia (22-23 October 1924). Locke participated in all but the
race amity
73
second, and he was involved in the planning and execution of these
events as well. Beginning with the task force that organized the first
convention, Locke served on race amity committees from 1924 until
1932. There are records of Locke having spoken at Bahá’í-sponsored
events from 1921 to 1952—a period of thirty-one years. According to
archivist Roger Dahl, “Locke was a member of the [Bahá’í] National
Race Amity Committee for at least five years between 1925 and
1932.”7 Locke was officially appointed to the following race amity
committees:
(1) National Amity Convention Committee (1924-1925): Agnes Parsons,
Elizabeth Greenleaf, Mariam Haney, Alain Locke, Mabel Ives, Louise
Waite, Louise Boyle, Roy Williams (a black Bahá’í), Philip R. Seville, and
Mrs. Atwater. Appointed 19 May 1924.8
(2) Racial Amity Committee (1925-1926): Previous committee reappointed
(except for Philip R. Seville): Agnes Parsons, Chair; Mariam Haney,
Secretary; Elizabeth Greenleaf, Alain Locke, Mabel Ives, Louise Waite,
Louise Boyle, Roy Williams, and Mrs. Atwater.9
(3) National Bahá’í Committee on Racial Amity (1927): Agnes Parsons
(“Chairman”), Louis Gregory (Executive Secretary), Louise Boyle, Mariam
Haney, Coralie Cook, Dr. Zia M. Bagdadi, Dr. Alain Locke. Appointed 14
January 1927. (Note: The National Spiritual Assembly invited a special
Committee on Racial Amity to meet in Washington, D.C., in January 1927,
to consult and make recommendations. The special committee’s letter to
the National Spiritual Assembly was dated 8 January.)10
(4) National Inter-Racial Amity Committee (1927-1928): Agnes S. Parsons,
Chairperson; Mrs. Coralie F. Cook, Vice Chairperson; Louis G. Gregory,
Executive Secretary; Dr. Zia M. Bagdadi, Dr. Alain L. Locke, Miss Elizabeth
G. Hopper, Miss Isabel Rives (later spelled Rieves).11 In December 1927,
the membership consisted of Agnes Parsons, Louis Gregory, Dr. Zia M.
Bagdadi, Dr. Alain Locke, and Mrs. Pauline Hannen,12 replacing Miss
Rieves, who was traveling abroad.
(5) National Inter-Racial Amity Committee (1928-1929): Louis Gregory,
Secretary; Agnes Parsons, Mariam Haney, Louise Boyle, Dr. Zia Bagdadi,
Dr. Alain Locke, Mrs. Loulie Matthews, Shelley N. Parker, Pauline
Hannen.13 For a period of time during this Bahá’í administrative year,
the National Teaching Committee and the National Inter-Racial Amity
Committee were affiliated for budgetary reasons.14
(6) National InterRacial (sic) Amity Committee (1929-1930): Louis Gregory
(Chairman), Shelley N. Parker (Secretary), Agnes Parsons, Mariam
Haney, Louise D. Boyle, Dr. Zia M. Bagdadi, Dr. Alain Locke, Miss Alice
Higginbotham, and Loulie A. Mathews.15 No independent amity committee was appointed for the 1930-31 Bahá’í administrative year. Amity
activities were subsumed under the National Teaching Committee, in
which Louis Gregory served as NTC secretary for amity activities.16
74
alain locke: faith & philosophy
(7) National Racial Amity Committee (1931-1932): Loulie Mathews,
Chairperson; Louis Gregory, Secretary; Zia M. Bagdadi, Mabelle L.
Davis, Frances Fales, Sara L. Witt, Alain Locke, Shelley N. Parker, Annie
K. Lewis.17
These are seven Bahá’í committees to which Locke was consistently reappointed, and on which he served for eight out of nine years
(1924-1932). It appears that Locke was not selected for the 1932-1933
committee.18 (The National Inter-Racial Amity Committee itself was
dissolved by the National Spiritual Assembly in 1936.19) While the
reason for his absence during 1932-1936, the final period of the race
amity cycle (1924-1936), is not clear, what is certain is that Locke’s
appointment to seven race amity committees was based on both his
willingness and ability to serve in this special capacity, contributing his
time and exceptional talents in the process.
To date, no systematic effort has been undertaken to reconstruct
Locke’s life as a Bahá’í. The following chronology will establish
Locke’s historic role in the early Bahá’í race relations initiatives.
The First Race Amity Convention (1921): This was both a tragic and
momentous year for American Bahá’ís—tragic, because of the death
of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, and momentous because of the success of two raceamity conferences held that year. By design, they were ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s
creation, and the first amity convention was conceived, initiated, delegated, and approved under his supervision. Happily, he lived to see
the fruits of his vision of interracial harmony. While the results of these
conventions did not create any appreciable change in American society,
‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s vision of race unity had a prophetic element.20
The first Race Amity conference was organized by Agnes S.
Parsons (a white woman prominent in Washington, D.C. society) at the
instruction of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. During her second pilgrimage to Haifa
(1920), he had said to her: “I want you to arrange in Washington a
convention for unity between the white and colored people.”21 This
came as quite a shock to Parsons, who had no prior experience in race
relations. The wisdom of this historic mission with which the leader of
the Bahá’í world charged Parsons would become evident over time. In
having to overcome her original self-doubts about her abilities to take
a leadership role in this capacity, Parsons would also have to confront
her conservatism on at least one of the race amity committees several
race amity
75
years later.
The term “conservative” was actually used with reference to
Parsons by her Bahá’í compatriot Louise Boyle, who in 1927, objected
to “Mrs. P’s conservatism in the Race question.”22 As Gayle Morrison
explains, although Agnes Parsons “accepted—intellectually—the principle of the oneness of mankind,” she herself took an intermediate
position between the “attitude of racial exclusiveness” of one Bahá’í
group (the Pythian Temple Bahá’ís), whose orientation she found to
be “more understandable than the demand for immediate integration
of all [Bahá’í] meetings.” Parsons, moreover, “had difficulty with
such practical demonstrations of oneness as intermarriage and social
equality.” To her credit, Parsons overcame her own racial and social
conservativism.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá advised Agnes Parsons not to undertake this work
alone. Accordingly, Parsons consulted with the Washington Bahá’í
assembly for advice and called upon several of her friends to form an ad
hoc race amity convention committee. This task force included Agnes
Parsons herself, Mariam Haney, Louise Boyle, Gabrielle Pelham, and
Martha Root.23 Since Mariam Haney appears to have been Locke’s
primary contact with the Bahá’í community in the early years, there is
every reason to believe that, once the organizing committee decided to
enlist Locke’s support, advice, and participation, Mariam Haney would
be the one to solicit his help. In a letter that only context can date,
Haney wrote Locke to say:
1302 Conn. Ave.
Wednesday
Dear Friend of Mine:—
Your kind note was duly received, and I am very sorry not to have been
able to send you an immediate recognition.
I have been incapacitated for several days, with rather an unusual digestive
disturbance. You will have “charity and sympathy,” I am sure, for you know
how serious are these conditions.
It has been impossible to make any “dates” and I had to cancel several
already scheduled. However, I want to say that dear Mr. Gregory is in town
for about ten days, and I want to arrange a little gathering in a few days which
I think is of the greatest importance at this time. If you will telephone me in
a day or two, I will talk the matter over with you a bit before our meeting. I
want to consult with you.
Kind greetings ever.
Cordially,
76
alain locke: faith & philosophy
Mariam Haney24
The language of this letter suggests that the race amity convention was the intended topic of consultation. While this is admittedly a
surmise, no other planned event at the time would fit the description.
Mariam Haney continued to be the liaison between Locke and the organizing committee. In a letter dated Saturday, 14 May (1921), less than
one week before the event, Mariam Haney, on behalf of the organizing
committee, wrote Locke:
My dear Friend:
We are arranging for a little meeting of consultation on Monday afternoon next at 2:30 o’clock with all those who are in town, or will be at that
time, and who are on the program. We are especially desirous of having you
with us.
If it is not entirely convenient for you to meet with us, please telephone
me as soon as you can and we will try and arrange for another hour.
The kindest greetings for your lovely mother, and with more than the
mere regard of,
Your friend sincerely,
Mariam Haney25
This letter was posted on Saturday, and would have to have been
delivered on Monday to have ever reached Locke in time. One difficulty is that he had no telephone at home. While not on this early
committee, there is a strong probability that Locke provided consultative advice. He also accepted to chair one of the sessions. The strategy
of the committee was to appoint a Bahá’í chairperson to preside over
each session,26 which featured more non-Bahá’í speakers than Bahá’í
speakers. According to Agnes Parsons: “At each session of the convention there was a Bahai Chairman and the chairman invariably gave
the keynote for the whole evening.”27 Based on this single fact, it is
clear that as early as 1921, Locke was already considered a professing
Bahá’í. All of the thoughtful planning paid off, as the convention was
a resounding success.
The First Race Amity Convention: The historic “Convention for Amity
Between the Colored and White Races Based on Heavenly Teachings”
took place on 19-21 May 1921, at the Congregational Church on 10th
and G Street N.W. in Washington, D.C. Locke served as Session Chair
on Friday evening, May 21.28 A facsimile of the printed program has
race amity
77
been published.29 This document, to the extent that each member of the
audience had read it prior to the sessions, in effect began the program.
That is to say, the program contained the essence of what the convention was designed to convey. The official program begins with this
message:
Half a century ago in America slavery was abolished.
Now there has arisen need for another great effort in order that prejudice
may be overcome.
Correction of the present wrong requires no army, for the field of action
is the hearts of our citizens. The instrument to be used is kindness, the ammunition—understanding. The actors in this engagement for right are all the
inhabitants of these United States.
The great work we have to do and for which this convention is called is
the establishment of amity between the white and the colored people of our
land.
When we have put our own house in order, then we may be trusted to
carry the message of universal peace to all mankind.
The printed programl30 featured short aphorisms by Jesus Christ,
Baha’o’llah [sic], Terence, Lao-tze, Epictetus, Zoroaster, and Moses.
The classical references may well have been the result of Locke’s influence in his role as consultant.
As to the sessions themselves, there exists an unpublished report,
“A Compilation on the Story of the Convention for Amity,” dated
31 May 1921, that provides many valuable details as to the behindthe-scenes planning and execution of the program. It contains Louis
Gregory’s report, which was published.31 Of Locke’s role as a session
chair and its keynote, Louis Gregory simply states: “Friday evening[:]
Dr. Alain L. Locke, professor at Howard University, presided. He
expressed the great spirit of the convention as the unity of the heart and
mind in human uplift.”32 The local press covered all five sessions in
three published reports, one for each day of the conference. In its story
of the evening session that took place on Friday, May 20, a reporter
for The Hadleigh wrote: “At the evening session Dr. A. L. Locke of
Howard University was the chairman. A refined, cultured, discriminating gentleman of knowledge, presiding with the utmost grace.”33
The two lectures that were presented during Locke’s session were:
(1) “Duties and Responsibilities of Citizenship” by Hon. Martin B.
Madden; and (2) “The New Internationalism and Its Spiritual Factors”
by Alfred Martin, president of the Ethical Culture Society. Madden
78
alain locke: faith & philosophy
said that anti-lynching legislation was slated for the next session of
Congress, that Congress definitely would enact it, and that the President
would sign it into law. Martin struck linkages between the brotherhood
of man and world democracy.34 Although the reporter is not named,
this valuable press coverage was due to the efforts of Martha Root,
assisted by Louis Gregory and Neval Thomas.35
The conference was a great success. It featured a rich artistic
program, both musical and literary. Among the musical performers
was solo violinist Joseph Douglass, grandson of the great abolitionist,
Frederick Douglass. The Howard University chorus performed as well.
Coralie Franklin Cook’s presentation on “Negro Poets” included readings of poems by Phyllis Wheatley, Paul Lawrence Dunbar, William
Stanley Braithwaite, Jessie Faucet, and others.36 Coralie Cook was
Chair of Oratory at Howard University. According to Morrison, Coralie
Cook had “represented the Bahá’í Faith among black intellectuals in
Washington, D.C. since about 1910.”37 Her husband, George William
Cook was a professor at Howard University as well.
Gwendolyn Etter-Lewis suggests that the Cooks learned about
the Bahá’í Faith as early as 1910, through Joseph and Pauline Hannen
in Washington, D.C., and became Bahá’ís around 1913.38 However,
Louis Gregory, in his typescript history of the early Washington Bahá’í
community, states: “The husbands of these two ladies [Coralie Franklin
Cook and Harriet Gibbs Marshall], the late Prof. Geo. W. Cook and
the late Capt. N. B. Marshall, although never formally declaring themselves believers, gave valued cooperation to the friends [Bahá’ís] in
efforts to spread the Faith.”39 Locke, in his obituary of George Cook,
writes in a similar vein: “But with all the conservatism of his mind, he
was yet able to embrace whatever new truth seemed to him a logical
extension of fundamental principles. On many occasions he expressed
with earnestness and enthusiasm his appreciation of the great principles
enunciated by Bahá’u’lláh for the perfecting of the human race, and
unhesitatingly offered his home for Bahá’í meetings.”40
The convention attracted crowds of fifteen hundred or more.41 “An
interesting aftereffect of the first amity convention,” Louis Gregory
observed, “was the stimulus it gave to orthodox people [established
churches and other religious groups], who started the organization of
interracial committees very soon thereafter.”42 Apart from this, the
convention had no measurable historic impact, since its goal was to
foster good will rather than achieve a concrete objective.43 Within the
race amity
79
Bahá’í community, however, the first Amity Convention was truly the
“mother” of all future Bahá’í-sponsored race initiatives. Retrospectively, in its 1929-1930 annual report, the nine-member Interracial
Amity Committee, of which Locke was an active participant, reaffirmed the significance of the first Amity Convention and concluded:
“There can be found in America today no more effective teaching, no
stronger magnet to attract souls.”44
‘Abdu’l-Bahá considered this meeting to have had paramount symbolic and social importance. In a message conveyed by Mountfort Mills
(an American Bahá’í who conveyed the oral message upon his return
from a visit to Palestine), ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was reported to have said:
Say to this convention that never since the beginning of time has a convention of more importance been held. This convention stands for the oneness
of humanity. It will become the cause of the removal of hostilities between
the races. It will become the cause of the enlightenment of America. It will,
if wisely managed and continued, check the deadly struggle between these
races, which otherwise will inevitably break out.45
When the convention ended, Agnes Parsons cabled ‘Abdu’l-Bahá:
“Convention successful. Meetings crowded. Hearts comforted.” To
which ‘Abdu’l-Bahá cabled back: “The white colored Convention
produced happiness. Hoping will establish same in all America.”46 In
one of several Tablets to her regarding the convention, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá
subsequently praised Agnes Parsons as “the first person to raise the
banner of the unity of the white and the colored”:
The Convention, comprising the white and the colored, which thou hadst
organized, was like the Mother, from which in near future many other meetings shall be born. But thou wert the founder of this Convention. The importance of every principle is at the beginning, and the first person to raise the
banner of the unity of the white and the colored, wert thou. It is certain that it
shall bear great results.47
On 4 October 1921, Mariam Haney wrote Locke: “Most important
of all, the very wonderful Tablets which have come to Mrs. Parsons and
myself about the Amity Convention.”48
In another letter to Parsons, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá wrote:
The Convention of the colored and the white was in reality a great work.
Because if the question of the colored and the white should not be solved,
it would be productive of great dangers in future for America. Therefore the
80
alain locke: faith & philosophy
Confirmations of the Kingdom of Abhá shall constantly reach any person who
strives after the conciliation of the colored and the white. Thank thou God that
thou art the first person who established a Race Convention.49
The “Convention for Amity Between the Colored and White Races
Based on Heavenly Teachings” was a landmark event, if for no other
reason than it proved to be a milestone in Bahá’í social history. It was
the progenitor of all future race amity conferences. That noble enterprise enlisted Locke’s direct support for over a decade to come.
No doubt due to logistical factors, Locke had no apparent
involvement in the second race amity convention, which was held in
Springfield, Massachusetts on 5-6 December 1921 in the auditorium of
Central High School.50 A photograph of that event shows the auditorium filled to capacity, with African Americans likely in the majority
of those attending.51
With “The Friends” at Home and Abroad (1922): For voting and
administrative purposes, Bahá’í communities compile annual membership lists that are updated throughout the year. Each Bahá’í year begins
on March 21, the Vernal Equinox, or the first day of spring. On the
official “List of Bahá’ís in U.S. & Canada, Washington” dated March
1922, Alain Locke is registered as a Bahá’í in good standing.52 This is
the very first membership list in which his name appears. There is no
ascertainable reason for his name not having surfaced in official membership records prior to this.
In the very same month, Shoghi Effendi established procedures
governing the elections of local and national spiritual assemblies
(Bahá’í governing councils) and the eventual election of the Universal
House of Justice.53 While he was never elected to a local or national
Bahá’í council, Locke was appointed to national and local committees.
In this respect, Locke acted on behalf of the Bahá’í institutions within
the delegated authority with which each committee is invested. At this
early stage in his Bahá’í life, therefore, Locke was certainly much more
than a passive member of the community.
Locke was a very busy man. He belonged to a number of learned
societies and professional organizations. As a public speaker, he was
in great demand. This being the case, it is difficult to determine how
“active” Locke was in his local Bahá’í community of Washington,
D.C. But there are some indications that, in the first few years of his
experience as a Bahá’í, Locke participated in some major events. The
race amity
81
following will suffice as an instance of this: In a letter dated 5 January
1922, Mariam Haney invited Locke to a memorial to commemorate the
Ascension (passing) of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá:
1818 N St
Dearest Friend: —
Mrs. Parsons joins with me in extending to you and your mother a most
gracious recognition of your kind thought of us in the expression of New
Year’s Greetings. I have been sick in bed or you would have heard from me
ere this.
Now I am writing to ask you, dear Dr Locke, come to the Memorial
service for Abdul Baha to be held at the home of Mrs. Parsons, Friday evening
of this week. The friends are asked to assemble at 11:45 p.m.—The service
will begin at 12 midnight and extend into the night. It is a service for the
believers only—or those who call themselves Bahais.
With loving greetings from Paul and me to you and your mother.
Your sister sincerely
Mariam Haney
Jan 5, 192254
While Mariam Haney would always greet Locke and his mother
together, this invitation was to him alone. Quite clearly, Haney considered him to be a declared Bahá’í, while his mother was not. Locke’s
self-identity as a Bahá’í would become an issue for both himself and
the Bahá’í community in later years. We do not know how he must have
felt about Haney’s “believers only” requirement, nor do we know if he
attended the Ascension meeting. Throughout his life, Locke obliged
personal invitations such as this one more often than not.
Mother’s Death and Impact on Locke’s Bahá’í Identity: Locke’s depth
of commitment as a Bahá’í was greatly influenced by his mother Mary
Locke and intensified by her death. That year would prove an emotionally intense time for Locke, for this was when his mother passed
away. Her influence on Locke was immense. His own commitment as a
Bahá’í, in a very real sense, was an extension of her abiding influence.
In a handwritten letter dated 28 June 1922, Locke wrote:
Alain LeRoy Locke
1326 R Street N.W.
Washington. D.C.
My dear Mrs. Parsons,
I am quite mortified to realize how long it has been since the receipt of
82
alain locke: faith & philosophy
your very appreciated letter of sympathy. Please accept this belated acknowledgement.
Mother’s feeling toward the [Bahá’í’] cause, and the friends who exemplify it, was unusually receptive and cordial for one who had reached conservative years,—it was her wish that I identify myself more closely with it.
I have now time and energy somewhat released to give, and I shall feel
it something of a dedicated service to be able to join more actively with the
friends in this movement for human brotherhood.
With very best respects,
Sincerely yours,
Alain Leroy Locke
June 28, 192255
There is typically something more compelling about a mother’s
wish if it is expressed late in life. While encouraging her son to deepen
his commitment as a Bahá’í appears not to have been a deathbed
wish as such, its effect was much the same. While she herself did not
embrace the “Bahá’í Cause” as her son did, Mary Locke exemplified a
number of Bahá’í virtues and the evidence indicates her sympathy for
the Bahá’í teachings.
As David Levering Lewis recounts, Locke “was a person of truly
exquisite, if somewhat eccentric, culture. His Howard University colleagues never forgot the wake Locke held in his apartment in the early
twenties. He had served them tea while the embalmed remains of his
mother sat in her favorite armchair.”56 I have heard corroborative
reports of this story from Howard University faculty and graduates.
International Bahá’í Experience: During 1922, Locke visited the
Bahá’ís of England. In a typewritten letter dated 21 October 1922,
Locke wrote of that meeting:
Alain LeRoy Locke
1326 R Street N.W.
Washington. D.C.
October Twenty-one
1922
My dear Mrs. Parsons:
Please pardon a dictated letter, as I am anxious to reply to your appreciated letter of the fourteenth. . . .
I learned with great satisfaction from Mrs. Haney of the plans for the
Amity Conference in New York. I shall most certainly attend, and if I can in
race amity
83
any way be of further assistance before or during the conference, please feel
free to call upon me.
Through a miscarriage of plans, due to necessity of taking some [heart]
treatment, I could not manage to meet the group of friends in Stuttgart. I did,
however, have some very appreciated hours with the friends in England, especially Miss Rosenberg. . .
With best respects and thanks,
Sincerely yours,
Alain Leroy Locke57
The letter shows that Locke actively sought out Bahá’í contacts in
the course of his travels during this period of his life. It was unfortunate
that Locke could not see the Bahá’ís in Germany—a country that, after
all, seems to have been his favorite in Europe. Whether or not Locke
did succeed in connecting with the Bahá’ís in Germany at a future date
is not known. Later in life, Locke would spend a few months in Haiti,
but his relationship with the Bahá’ís there is also unknown. It is doubtful whether Locke attempted to contact the Bahá’ís in Egypt, where the
Faith led a precarious, somewhat clandestine existence.
Locke’s Idealism and Activism: Returning to America and his race-relations work at home, Locke’s initial idealism as a Bahá’í manifested
itself in his capacity as a fellow organizer and promoter of events aimed
at bridging the racial divide and mitigating the racial crisis. Racial
amity was a noble ideal—that was the mission of the early Bahá’í
race relations work. For it to become a reality (or at least a possibility), that social ideal had to be translated into real life. The race amity
conventions served this purpose. The ambience of these extraordinary
meetings depended upon an elegant setting, enlivened by a program
of inspiring speeches, music, and poetry. Locke’s attention to detail in
planning the race amity events appears in a subsequent letter, dated 1
November 1922, to Parsons in which Locke wrote of the forthcoming
publication of poems by Mrs. Georgia Douglass Johnson in the Bronze
series that he was editing: “I am now sending you copies and hope that
Mrs. Osgood may be able to use some of them. One or two impressed
me as likely to be very effective and in keeping with the moods we
should stress in the Inter-Amity Convention.”58
Culture, for Locke, was the goodwill ambassador of interracial
contacts. The amity conventions seemed to reflect Locke’s tastes, infusing these events with a literary and artistic dimension. This was cultural
84
alain locke: faith & philosophy
pluralism at work. It was only natural that he would try to use art to
promote Bahá’í principles. The meeting to which he refers in his letter
was the third amity convention, which would be held in New York on
28-30 March 1924. Evidently, this event had originally been scheduled
for late 1922. In a letter dated 16 November 1922 to poet Countee
Cullen, Locke mentions the reason why he did not meet Cullen in New
York, as planned: “You are probably wondering why you have not
heard from me or seen me in New York. The Amity Conference, which
I had promised to attend seems to have been delayed or postponed.”59
In his letter of 21 October 1922 to Agnes Parsons cited above,
Locke was enthusiastic about “plans for the Amity Conference in New
York” about which Mariam Haney had told him. Her role as Locke’s
primary Bahá’í contact continued, as it had for seven years, dating back
to 1915. Locke’s promise to attend, and his offer to be of service, was
sincere. The event would take place in the year after his first Bahá’í
pilgrimage (1923).
First Will and Testament: Curiously, Locke wrote a last will and testament dated 30 June 1922, on stationery stamped “The Edward Steam
Ship Company” and “On Board The Cunard R.M.S. ‘Aquitania’,” but
indicated as having been written and “duly witnessed” (with no witness
signature) in Washington, D.C. Among other things, the will directs
that a “$200 memorial” be given “to Rev. O. L. Mitchell or successor
for St. Mary’s Chapel in the name of [illegible].”60 Perhaps this was
meant in memory of his mother. But further in the testament, Locke
writes: “It is my preference [that] any small foundation [?] as will be
made possible should bear the memorial name of my parents, Pliny
Ishmael Locke and Mary Hawkins Locke rather than my own, in honor
of their great sacrifices for me.” Locke was probably still in grief over
his mother’s death, and evidently remembered the anniversary of her
passing every year thereafter.
Locke and Louis Gregory (1923): This was an important year in Locke’s
development as a Bahá’í: service to youth, meeting Bahá’ís in England
and Germany, pilgrimage, and possible influence on Shoghi Effendi’s
message to the Washington, D.C. Bahá’í community at the end of the
year. We should also assume that he somehow became involved in the
planning of the third amity convention that would take place in New
York the following year. While the events of record tell us about the
race amity
85
more important Bahá’í services he rendered, there may well have been
other contributions that Locke made for which there is no record. His
correspondence provides some evidence and insight into the nature and
extent of his Bahá’í activities.
Though Mariam Haney was clearly Locke’s most important Bahá’í
contact, another significant influence in Locke’s Bahá’í life was Louis
Gregory. On 12 March 1923, Louis Gregory wrote Locke:
1501 7th St. N. W.
Washington D. C. 12 March, 1923.
Dr. Alain L. Locke
1326 R Street N. W.
City:
My noble Brother:
I am grateful for your cordial lines of the 8th inst., which find me still
in town on account of unexpected and unavoidable delay. It was indeed a joy
for me to serve with you in the awakening of souls. It is my prayer that your
happiness will grow, that you may fill your environment with the joy of real
life and that the human world be adorned thru your efforts.
Your idea of soul saving is also mine. The greatest attainment for the soul
of man is to “soar in the atmosphere of realities.” But this is possible only
for those who are freed from the world of superstition, imagination and the
various dogmas and material attachments that enthrall. To become universal in
thot [sic] and sympathies is to be God-like. Thus man is elevated to the heaven
of the Divine Will and in his life and character reflects the Divine virtues and
perfections. Abdul Baha has indicated that the various Prophets have appeared
that “veils might be rent asunder and reality become manifest.”
It is certain that the youth for whom you are now doing so much will to
a greater and greater degree, as the years pass, appreciate your service. Their
illumination will in turn brighten others and the traces of divine education
will spread thru the ages. In blessing you are blessed. In giving life you are its
joyous recipient. Thus eternal life begins, even in this world of dust.
Please convey to your circle my best wishes and accept, in acknowledgement of your kindness, my warm appreciation and eternal good will.
Very cordially yours,
Louis G. Gregory61
Here, Gregory is responding to Locke’s letter of March 8th. Given
the intervening time required for delivery, it is clear that Gregory gave
Locke an immediate and cordial reply, reflecting the same warmth
and friendship that was expressed in Locke’s letter to him. It is hard
to know the precise reference to their collaboration in “the awakening of souls.” True, they had served together in the first race amity
86
alain locke: faith & philosophy
convention in 1921. Extrapolating from the fact that Louis Gregory
was practically a full-time Bahá’í itinerant “travel teacher,” certainly
their joint endeavor involved teaching the Bahá’í Faith. Except for this
letter, there might not have been any trace of Locke’s involvement in
the education of youth. This appears to have been, initially, a regular
commitment. It could not have been a long-term one, however, given
his plans for pilgrimage.
We simply would have had no idea of the extent of Locke’s Bahá’í
activities were it not for evidence gleaned from his correspondence.
The fact that Locke kept much of his incoming correspondence, with
occasional carbon copies of his outgoing letters, allows historians to
reconstruct certain events in his life. For instance, in his letter dated 15
March 1923 to Countee Cullen, Locke refers to yet another postponement of the race amity conference: “This is just to get me started and
to inform you on some neutral matters. The Inter-Amit[y] Conference
which I was to have attended in New York the twenty-first, twentysecond and twenty-third, again has been postponed. I am sorry to disappoint you about the twenty-first. I should dearly love to be there for
your sake.”62
Often his letters contain allusive references, vague and written in
passing. Such is the case in determining that Locke did finally succeed
in meeting the Bahá’ís of Germany. Charles Mason Remey, a prominent Bahá’í of the time, mentions this in a letter dated 12 June 1923 to
Locke: “I envy your meeting with the Bahá’ís of Germany, if it were
possible for us to envy another’s blessings.”63
Notes
1. “Talk at Home of Andrew J. Dyer, 24 April 1912,” Promulgation of Universal
Peace, pp. 56-57.
2. Henry E. Baker to Alain Locke, no date, Alain Locke Papers, MoorlandSpingarn Research Center, Howard University, Washington, DC, Box 164-12,
folder 9. Available at http://www.huarchivesnet.howard.edu/howarcorbaker1a.htm.‑
3. Morrison, To Move the World, p. 149.
4. National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, The Vision
of Race Unity: America’s Most Challenging Issue (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing
Trust, 1991).
5. Alain Locke, Race Contacts and Interracial Relations, edited by Jeffery C.
Stewart (Washington: Howard University Press, 1992).
6. Gayle Morrison, To Move the World: Louis G. Gregory and the Advancement
of Racial Unity in America (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1982).
race amity
87
7. Dahl to Buck, 16 February 2001.
8. Morrison, To Move the World, p. 147.
9. Morrison, To Move the World, p. 155.
10. “National Committee on Race Amity Appointed,” Baha’i News Letter, No. 16
(March 1927) p. 5. Morrison, To Move the World, pp. 166 and 344, n. 4. Morrison
to author, e-mail dated 19 June 2002.
11. “Committees of the National Spiritual Assembly 1927-1928,” Baha’i News
Letter, No. 19 (August 1927) p. 4; Bahá’í Archives of Washington, D.C. Courtesy
of Ms. Anita Chapman. This list is confirmed in a letter written by Louis Gregory
himself. Gregory to Parsons, 10 July 1927, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA. Courtesy
of Roger M. Dahl, Archivist, enclosure sent 22 August 2001.
12. Morrison, To Move the World, p. 182.
13. Gregory to Parsons, 29 July 1928, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA. Courtesy of
Roger M. Dahl, Archivist, enclosure sent 22 Aug. 2001.
14. “Committees of the National Spiritual Assembly 1929-1930,” Baha’i News
Letter, No. 32 (May 1929) p. 4. See also “Interracial Amity Committee, “Baha’i
News Letter No. 40 (April 1930) pp. 10-12, and Morrison, To Move the World, p.
186.
15. “Committees of the National Spiritual Assembly 1929-1930,” Baha’i News
Letter, No. 32 (May 1929) p. 4. Members: Louis Gregory (Chairman), Shelley
Parker (Secretary), Agnes Parsons, Louise Boyle, Mariam Haney, Dr. Zia Bagdadi,
Dr. Alain Locke, Loulie Mathews, Miss Alice Higginbotham.
16. Morrison to author, e-mail dated 19 June 2002. I am indebted to Dr. Morrison
for the considerable research time she spent in verifying the memberships of these
seven committees on which Locke served.
17. “National Bahá’í Committees: 1931-1932,” Baha’i News Letter, No. 53 (July
1931) p. 2; Louis Gregory, “The Annual Convention,” Bahá’í News, no. 52 (May
1931) p. 3; Locke to Gregory, 6 June 1931, Louis Gregory Papers, NBA. Courtesy
of Roger M. Dahl, Archivist, enclosure with letter dated 16 February 2001;
Morrison, To Move the World, p. 349, n. 29.
18. Morrison, To Move the World, p. 195. Committee members included Loulie
Mathews, Mabelle L. Davis, Dr. Zia Bagdadi, Shelley N. Parker, Sara E. Witt,
Coralie F. Cook, Louis Gregory.
19. Morrison, To Move the World, pp. 213-14, 244.
20. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá regarded race unity as the fifth candle of his “Seven Candles
of Unity.” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, compiled
by the Research Department of the Universal House of Justice, trans. by Marzieh
Gail, et al. (Haifa: Bahá’í World Centre, 1978) pp. 30-32.
21. Gregory, “Inter-racial Amity,” p. 281. See Morrison, To Move the World, 13443.
22. Louise Boyle to Horace Holley, 1 February 1927, Interracial Committee
Correspondence, Office of the Secretary, National Spiritual Assembly of the
Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada Records, qtd. in Morrison, To Move the
World, p. 168.
23. Gayle Morrison, “To Move the World: Promoting Racial Amity, 1921-1927,”
World Order, Vol. 14, no. 2 (Winter 1980) p. 15.
24. Haney to Locke, undated, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-33, Folder 49
(Haney, Mariam).
88
alain locke: faith & philosophy
25. Haney to Locke, 14 May 1921, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-33,
Folder 49 (Haney, Mariam).
26. Morrison, To Move the World, p. 139.
27. Morrison, “To Move the World: Promoting Racial Amity, 1921-1927,” p.
16, citing Bahai Temple Unity, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting, 1922, p. 310,
Bahai Temple Unity records.
28. Louis Gregory, “Convention for Amity Between the Colored and White
Races.” In Star of the West, Vol. 12, no. 6 (24 June 1921) pp. 117-18. Reprinted
as Vol. 7 (Oxford: George Ronald, 1978). See also Gregory, “Inter-Racial Amity,”
in The Bahá’í World: A Biennial International Record, Volume Two, 1926-1928,
comp. National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada
(New York: Bahá’í Publishing Committee, 1929; reprint, Wilmette: Bahá’í
Publishing Trust, 1980) p. 281; and Gregory, “Racial Amity in America” in The
Bahá’í World: A Biennial International Record, Volume 7, 1936-1938 (National
Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada, 1939; reprint,
Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1980) p. 655; Mariam Haney (secretary, The
Teaching Committee of Nineteen), “A Compilation of the Story of the Convention
for Amity,” 31 May 1921, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-106, Folder 7 (re:
Amity Convention).
29. Facsimile on p. 168 of National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the
United States and Canada, The Bahá’í Centenary, 1844-1944: A Record of
America’s response to Bahá’u’lláh’s Call to the Realization of the Oneness of
Mankind to Commemorate the One Hundreth Anniversary of the Birth of the
Bahá’í Faith (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Committee, 1944). See also Horace
Holley, “Survey of Current Bahá’í Activities in the East and West,” in The Bahá’í
World: A Biennial International Record, Volume II, April 1926-April 1928 (New
York: Bahá’í Publishing Committee, 1928; reprint, Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing
Trust, 1980) pp. 22-23.
30. Program, Bahá’í Archives of Washington, D.C. Courtesy of Ms. Anita
Chapman.
31. Louis Gregory, “Convention for Amity Between the Colored and White
Races” in Star of the West, Vol. 12, no. 6 (24 June 1921) pp. 114-19, 123-24.
Reprinted as Vol. 7 (Oxford: George Ronald, 1978).
32. Louis Gregory, in Mariam Haney, “A Compilation on the Story of the
Convention for Amity,” on behalf of “The Teaching Committee of Nineteen,”
31 May 1921, p. 5. Bahá’í Archives of Washington, D.C. Courtesy of Ms. Anita
Chapman. See also Louis G. Gregory, “Convention for Amity Between the Colored
and White Races,” Star of the West, Vol. 12, no. 6 (June 24, 1921) p. 118, which
reads: “Friday evening Dr. Alain L. Locke, presiding, expressed the great effort of
the convention to be the unity of heart and mind in human succor, exemplifying
the power of a new spirit in a new day.”
33. The Hadleigh (Washington, D.C.), 20 May 1921, quoted by Mariam Haney,
“A Compilation on the Story of the Convention for Amity,” p. 9.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid., p. 2.
36. Ibid., p. 6.
37. Morrison, “To Move the World: Promoting Racial Amity, 1921-1927,” p. 16,
n. 30.
race amity
89
38. Gwendolyn Etter-Lewis, “African American Women in the Bahá’í Faith,
1899-1919,” World Order, Vol. 25, no. 2 (Winter 1993-94) p. 47.
39. Louis Gregory, “Some Recollections of the Early Days of the Bahai Faith in
Washington, D.C.” Manuscript. 7 December 1937, Tuskegee Institute. Courtesy of
Gayle Morrison, U.S. Bahá’’í National Center.
40. Alain L. Locke, “Educator and Publicist,” Star of the West, Vol. 22, no. 8
(November 1931) pp. 254-55. (Obituary of George William Cook, 1855-1931.)
41. Morrison, “To Move the World: Promoting Racial Amity, 1921-1927,” p. 17.
42. Gregory, quoted by Morrison, Ibid., p. 17.
43. Ibid., pp. 17-18.
44. National Committee on Inter-Racial Amity to the “National Spiritual Assembly
and the Local Spiritual Assemblies of the United States and Canada,” 23 February
1927. Bahá’í Archives of Washington, D.C. Courtesy of Ms. Anita Chapman.
45. Gregory, “Convention for Amity Between the Colored and White Races,” p.
115.
46. Untitled report by Martha Root, in Mariam Haney, “A Compilation on the
Story of the Convention for Amity,” p. 12.
47. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá to Parsons, 26 July 1921 and 27 September 1921, qtd. in
Morrison, To Move the World, pp. 143 and 342, n. 34.
48. Haney to Locke, 4 October 1911, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-33,
Folder 49 (“Haney, Mariam”).
49. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá to Parsons, 26 July 1921 and 7 October 1921, qtd. in Morrison,
To Move the World, pp. 142-43 and 342, n. 33. Also published in the 1929-1930
Annual Reports, Baha’i News Letter, “Interracial Amity Committee,” p. 10. An
alternative translation is as follows: “The convention of the colored and white was
in reality a great work, because if the question of the colored and white should not
be resolved[,] it will be productive of great dangers in [the] future for America.
Therefore the Confirmations [sic] of the Kingdom of Abhá shall continually
reach any person who strives after the conciliation of the colored and the white.”
(Gregory, “Interracial Amity Committee” (1930) p. 10.) Note that this text differs
from the translation given in another report (Gregory, “Convention for Amity
Between the Colored and White Races,” p. 115), but the gist is the same. In all
likelihood, both translations were taken from the same Persian original.
50. See Roy Williams, “Convention for Amity Between the White and Colored
Races, Springfield, Massachusetts, December 5 and 6, 1921” Star of the West, Vol.
13 (28 April 1922) p. 51.
51. Morrison, To Move the World, photograph opposite p. 137.
52. “List of Bahá’ís in U.S. & Canada” dated March 1922. NBA. Courtesy of
Roger Dahl, Archivist.
53. Robert Stockman, “The Bahá’í Faith in America: One Hundred Years,” World
Order, Vol. 25, no. 3 (Spring 1994) p. 14.
54. Haney to Locke, 5 January 1922, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-33,
Folder 49 (“Haney, Mariam”).
55. Locke to Parsons, 28 June 1922, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA. Courtesy of
Roger Dahl, Archivist.
56. Lewis, When Harlem Was in Vogue, p. 87.
57. Locke to Parsons, 21 October 1922, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA. Courtesy of
Roger Dahl, Archivist, enclosure sent 20 February 2001.
58. Locke to Parsons, 1 November 1922, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA. Courtesy
90
alain locke: faith & philosophy
of Roger Dahl, Archivist, enclosure sent 20 February 2001.
59. Locke to Cullen, 16 Nov. 1922, Box 3, Fol. Locke, Countee Cullen Papers,
Amistad Research Center, Tulane University.
60. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-1, Folder 6 (Will and instructions in
case of death).
61. Gregory to Locke, 12 March 1923, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-32,
Folder 50 (Gregory, Louis G.).
62. Locke to Cullen, 15 March 1923, Box 3, Fol. Locke, Countee Cullen Papers,
Amistad Research Center, Tulane University.
63. Remey to Locke, 12 June 1923, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-80,
Folder 1 (Remey, Charles Mason).
SHOGHI EFFENDI RABBANI
Chapter Six
Pilgrimage
The Holy Land—present-day Israel, the Dead Sea and the Negev
desert, western Jordan, the Red Sea, and Sinai—is sacred to three great
world religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. There is a fourth
world religion, the Bahá’í Faith, which has its sacred shrines there also
on Mount Carmel in Haifa, the third largest city in Israel.
As a Bahá’í, Locke undertook two pilgrimages to the Holy Land.
The first was in 1923, the second in 1934. His first pilgrimage was
immortalized in a travel narrative published in 1924, reprinted three
times and endorsed by Shoghi Effendi, the grandson of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá
who became the head of the Bahá’í Faith after ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s passing.
It is significant that Locke’s trips to Israel (then Palestine) were for the
primary purpose of visiting the Bahá’í shrines, rather than Jerusalem.
The fact that Haifa was his principal destination attests the primacy
of Locke’s religious identity as a Bahá’í rather than as a (former)
Episcopalian, as he was always designated in the brief biographical
notices of him published during his lifetime. (It was only in 1952 in an
article “Bahá’í Faith: Only church in world that does not discriminate,”
in Ebony magazine, that Locke’s Bahá’í identity was publicized in the
popular media.1)
Bahá’ís are strongly encouraged to go on pilgrimage at least once
in their lifetime. After declaring his faith in 1918, and probably having
written to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, the next step for Locke would be to make
93
94
alain locke: faith & philosophy
his pilgrimage to Haifa. Before he could undertake such a voyage,
‘Abdu’l-Bahá passed away in 1921. Notwithstanding this loss for the
Bahá’í world, Locke was about to meet someone who would make a
lasting impression on him. In reviewing the scope of his Bahá’í life,
surely Locke’s most profound experience as a Bahá’í was the event of
his first pilgrimage, where he made a cordial and lasting connection
with Shoghi Effendi. Locke (1885-1954) and Shoghi Effendi (18971957) were close contemporaries.
Beyond its personal value for him, Locke left a record of his pilgrimage for posterity. In April 1924, Locke’s essay “Impressions of
Haifa” became his first Bahá’í publication. It was reprinted three times,
in 1926, 1928, and 1930.2
Locke’s pilgrimage was part of a larger itinerary, which included
the Sudan and Egypt. In a letter to Countee Cullen, Locke names
two ships that he contemplated taking for his voyage abroad, reflecting the fact that he had already narrowed his choice: “Naturally I am
depressed—you as bus-boy and Langston [Hughes] as galley-slave—
when I had in imagination placed the trio in Europe this summer—you
with the German mission—Langston with me. . . . I was going to take
the same ship—as it is, I will sail the 27th on the Paris or the 30th on
the Empress of Britain.”3 Based on a postcard dated 12 July 1923 to
Countee Cullen, the ship he chose was probably the Empress of Britain.
Locke says: “You and Langston have been so much on my mind, especially during the long days of the ship’s journey.”4 The postcard was
printed in Oxford and the stamp was British.
Granted sabbatical leave to collaborate with the French
Archaeological Society of Cairo, the highlight of his research trip
was the reopening of the tomb of Tutankhamen. In the introduction to
Locke’s “Impressions of Luxor,” the editor of The Howard Alumnus
wrote that Locke had “spent several months in Europe, the Near East,
Egypt, and the Sudan, 1923-1924.”5 On his passport issued 26 June
1922, Locke was granted a visa in Berlin, dated 25 August 1923 (No.
N. 3826), permitting him to travel to “Egypt, Palestine & United
Kingdom.”6
Curiously, Locke had originally arranged for Harlem Renaissance
poet Langston Hughes to accompany him on his pilgrimage. In a letter
to poet Countee Cullen, Locke writes: “As to Langston . . . I had an
invitation to the Bahaist center at Haifa so worded as to include him.”7
This indicates that Shoghi Effendi probably had extended an invitation
pilglrimage
95
to Langston Hughes to visit the Bahá’í shrines, notwithstanding the fact
that that the celebrated poet was not himself a Bahá’í and thus would
not be undertaking a Bahá’í pilgrimage. Hughes probably could have
accompanied Locke to Haifa had he wished to, as the two had spent
time together in Paris and in Verona,8 and previously in Paris.9
Evidence has come to light that narrows the date of Locke’s pilgrimage to within a week. A nearly precise date comes from a memo
written by the Research Department at the Bahá’í World Center:
Dr. Locke visited the Bahá’í World Centre on at least two occasions. We have
not, however, been able to find a record of the exact dates of his pilgrimages. Dr. Locke’s first visit appears to have taken place in November or early
December 1923. As to the duration of his stay, we note that Dr. Locke, in a
letter dated 5 December 1923 written from Egypt, informs Shoghi Effendi of
his arrival in Cairo. The letter also refers to “the memory of the past week at
Haifa . . .”10
Locke’s first pilgrimage therefore took place in late November or early
December 1923, or perhaps both, depending on how long the pilgrimage lasted. Originally, Locke had planned to spend a month in Haifa.
In the same letter to Countee Cullen just cited, Locke writes: “I am
going to stay there at least a month—and had hoped to do some writing
there.”11
The full text of Locke’s letter of 5 December 1923 to Shoghi
Effendi, written around a week after his pilgrimage, is unavailable. It
is customary for the Bahá’í World Center to treat letters written to the
central authorities of the Bahá’í Faith (Bahá’u’lláh, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, and
Shoghi Effendi) as personal and confidential. However, for research
purposes, complete or partial summaries of these letters may be provided to researchers. Further details of Locke’s letter were provided by
the Research Department:
After acknowledging his “safe and pleasant” arrival in Cairo, Dr. Locke states
that his memory of his week in Haifa “is one of the happiest things I have to
cherish—the experience itself being one of the most significant and beneficial
experiences of my life.”12
We should take Locke at his word. This statement, while lacking
in specifics, reveals the impact that Locke’s pilgrimage had on him.
Typically, the intensity of a pilgrimage experience not only rejuvenates
a person’s faith, but also sustains it. By the concrete immediacy of
96
alain locke: faith & philosophy
sacred space or place, pilgrimage leaves a deep and abiding impression on the pilgrim for whom the experience ia richly rewarding. The
specific claims that each religion makes as to the particular spiritual
rewards of such an experience vary, of course. But the end result is
much the same: The pilgrim renews his faith through a close, personal
encounter with both the historic and present locus of spiritual power
with which the sacred site is associated. Impressed as he was by the
Bahá’í Shrines themselves, Locke was even more deeply struck by
Shoghi Effendi.
Locke translated his private appreciation of his experience into a
public one. Just as he was a public intellectual in his role as an academic, in his “Impressions of Haifa” Locke was a “public” pilgrim.
“Impressions of Haifa” was published in 1924 in the Bahá’í magazine,
Star of the West, then reprinted three times in the earliest volumes of
The Bahá’í World.
Due to its descriptive excellence, the article would likely have been
reprinted on its own merits. But the endorsement that the essay received
from the Guardian himself gilded Locke’s piece with an aura of
approval that went beyond the question of authenticity. What emerges
is a spiritual odyssey cast in the form of a travel narrative. This is what
makes “Impressions of Haifa” qualitatively distinct from “Impressions
of Luxor,” even though both narratives are otherwise comparable in
form and content.
On its merits, “Impressions of Haifa” is a descriptive masterpiece.
It reveals this time, not a literary critic, but a man of letters—a frustrated artist perhaps, yet a talented one—resulting in one of the most
significant records ever written by a Bahá’í pilgrim. Without trying to
read too much into it, Locke’s descriptions practically take on a dimension of allegory whose theme is the synergy between “the supernatural
with the natural, beauty and joy with morality”:
Everything seems to share the custody of the Message—the place itself is a
physical revelation. I shall never forget my first view of it from the terraces
of the shrine. Mount Carmel, already casting shadows, was like a dark green
curtain behind us and opposite was a gorgeous crescent of hills so glowing
with color—gold, sapphire, amethyst as the sunset colors changed—and in
between the mottled emerald of the sea, and the grey-toned house-roofs of
Haifa.13
Locke’s use of the term, “revelation,” is especially poignant for
pilglrimage
97
Bahá’ís, since the truth-claims of their faith reside in a claim to the
veracity and authority of the revelations of the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh.
“Everything seems to share the custody of the Message” creates an
expectation in the reader that the description to follow will somehow
“translate” the Bahá’í revelation or message into a “physical revelation.” Locke’s choice of precious jewels to describe the colors he
beheld appears to be deliberate: In so doing, he accentuates the inestimable value of the divine revelation as reflected in the “physical revelation” of the shrines themselves. He continues:
Almost immediately opposite and picking up the sun’s reflection like polished
metal were the ramparts of ‘Akká, transformed for a few moments from its
shabby decay into a citadel of light and beauty. Most shrines concentrate the
view upon themselves—this one turns itself into a panorama of inspiring
loveliness. It is a fine symbol for a Faith that wishes to reconcile the supernatural with the natural, beauty and joy with morality. It is an ideal place for
the reconciliation of things that have been artificially and wrongfully put
asunder.14
Opposite Mount Carmel, across the Bay of Haifa, is ‘Akká. The
scene shifts to the site of the former Ottoman penal colony where
Bahá’u’lláh, his family and followers were incarcerated beginning in
1868. For Locke, that pestilential fortress-prison is now transformed
into “a citadel of light and beauty,” gilded with spiritual as well as
historic significance. In this heavenly vista, what had been “artificially
and wrongfully put asunder” is restored and reintegrated. Locke could
have spoken of the “reconciliation” of races, an issue paramount both
to him personally and to Shoghi Effendi as well. But, as with all good
art, Locke exercises chaste control in his narrative in recreating the
experience for the sheer sake of beauty. He resists any temptation to
propagandize.
Towards the end of “Impressions of Haifa,” Locke gives his
impressions of ‘Akká. Probably on the final day of his pilgrimage,
Locke visited the Shrine (i.e., the tomb) of Bahá’u’lláh at Bahjí,
whereof he writes:
Then there was the visit to the Bahjí, the garden spot of the Faith itself and to
Acre, now a triumphant prison shell that to me gave quite the impression one
gets from the burst cocoon of the butterfly. Vivid as the realization of cruelty
and hardships might be, there was always the triumphant realization here that
opposite on the heights of Carmel was enshrined the victory that had survived
98
alain locke: faith & philosophy
and conquered and now was irrepressible. The Bahjí was truly oriental, as
characteristically so as Mt. Carmel had been cosmopolitan.15
The image of a cocoon evokes the drab and dismal confines of the
prison in ‘Akká. The butterfly is Bahá’u’lláh. Extending this metaphor,
the butterfly in search of nectar wings it way to Mount Carmel. Instead
of finding flowers, however, this butterfly will create magnificent
gardens that, in due time, will attract others, like Locke himself, to
their exquisite beauty and to the “nectar” of spiritual nourishment they
provide.
Locke tells us nothing about his experience inside the Shrine of
Bahá’u’lláh. For a sense of this, his description of the Shrines of the
Báb and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá will have to suffice. In his narrative, Locke
takes the reader with him into the interior:
The shrine chambers of the Báb and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá are both impressive, but in
a unique and almost modern way: richly carpeted, but with austerely undecorated walls and ceilings, and flooded with light, the ante-chambers are simply
the means of taking away the melancholy and gruesomeness of death and
substituting for them the thought of memory, responsibility and reverence.
Through the curtained doorways, the tomb-chambers brilliantly lighted create
an illusion which defeats even the realization that one is in the presence of a
sepulchre. Here without mysticism and supernaturalness, there is dramatically
evoked that the lesson of the Easter visitation of the tomb, the fine meaning of
which Christianity has in such large measure forgotten, “He is not here, He is
risen.” That is to say, one is strangely convinced that the death of the greatest
teachers is the release of their spirit in the world, and the responsible legacy
of their example bequeathed to posterity.16
This is an interesting passage, for it implies that the Bahá’í Faith has its
own Easter message. While not predicated on an empty tomb and postresurrection epiphanies, Locke senses the spiritual power—the living
presence—of the Báb, Bahá’u’lláh, and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá.
While the Bahá’í shrines somehow preserve the charisma of the
personages in whose memory they were built, Locke now turns to
another charismatic figure, Shoghi Effendi. Deeply impressed by this
man, Locke writes of him:
It was a privilege to see and experience these things. But it was still more
of a privilege to stand there with the Guardian of the Cause, and to feel that,
accessible and inspiring as it was to all who can come and will come, there
was available there for him a constant source of inspiration and vision from
pilglrimage
99
which to draw, in the accomplishment of his heavy burdens and responsibilities. That thought of communion with ideas and ideals without the mediation
of symbols, seemed to me the most reassuring and novel feature. For after all
the only enlightened symbol of a religious or moral principle is the figure of a
personality endowed to perfection with its qualities and necessary attributes.
Earnestly renewing this inheritance seemed the constant concern of this gifted
personality, and the quiet but insistent lesson of his temperament.17
Locke was speaking of a living embodiment of Bahá’í qualities. In
Locke’s eyes, Shoghi Effendi was the perfect model of a true Bahá’í.
In coming to a deep appreciation of Shoghi Effendi as a “gifted personality,” Locke was privileged to see the Guardian’s “refreshingly
human”18 side as well. The two enjoyed a long walk and conversation
in the Bahá’í gardens:
Refreshingly human after this intense experience, was the relaxation of our
walk and talk in the gardens. Here the evidences of love, devotion and service
were as concrete and as practical and as human as inside the shrines they had
been mystical and abstract and superhuman. Shoghi Effendi is a master of
detail as well as of principle, of executive foresight as well as of projective
vision. But I have never heard details so redeemed of their natural triviality
as when talking to him of the plans for the beautifying and laying out of the
terraces and gardens. They were important because they all were meant to
dramatize the emotion of the place and quicken the soul even through the
senses.19
The conversation dwelled on the aesthetics of the terraces and
gardens surrounding the shrines. Although Locke was a philosopher,
he and Shoghi Effendi did not engage in a discussion of Bahá’í metaphysics, although they easily could have. Nor did the two (based on
this record) talk about race relations, though they may have discussed
the Washington, D.C. Bahá’í community. Following their walk in the
gardens, Locke was taken to the house of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá:
It was night in the quick twilight of the east before we had finished the details
of inspecting the gardens, and then by the lantern light, the faithful gardener
showed us to the austere retreat of the great Expounder of the teaching. It
taught me with what purely simple and meager elements a master workman
works. It is after all in himself that he finds his message and it is himself that
he gives with it to the world.20
‘Abdu’l-Bahá lived in almost austere simplicity. Shoghi Effendi,
in furthering the Bahá’í message, gave artistic expression to it. As the
100
alain locke: faith & philosophy
master landscape architect of the Bahá’í Gardens on Mount Carmel,
Shoghi Effendi’s work had permanent effect, because Bahá’ís have
resolved to preserve the artistic integrity of his vision.
For Locke, his “Impressions of Haifa” were indelible. While the
immediacy of it faded over time, its effects were enduring. As a result
of that experience, Locke resolved to rededicate his life to the service
of the Bahá’í “Cause.” In a subsequent reference to the contents of
Locke’s letter of 5 December 1923, the Research Department relates:
As stated in the earlier summary, he shares his view that the best way for him
to thank Shoghi Effendi is “to devote my best efforts to the Cause.” He also
asks to be remembered “with thanks to the friends” until he has had a chance
to write them individually.21
Locke did not identify these other friends he was planning to write to.
There is a body of correspondence with Bahá’ís preserved in the Alain
Locke Papers at Howard University. This correspondence provides
much of the evidence for reconstructing Locke’s subsequent activities
as a Bahá’í, as will be seen in the succeeding chapters.
One of the ways in which Locke did devote his “best efforts to the
Cause” was through lending his pen to it. Locke published four major
essays in several editions of The Bahá’í World (the Bahá’í year books),
beginning with his “Impressions of Haifa.”
That essay impressed the Guardian. In a letter, dated 12 March
1926, written on his behalf, Shoghi Effendi wrote: “The article by Prof.
Locke is very good and sufficient.”22 Doubtless the article itself was
widely appreciated by Bahá’ís. To what extent it was known and shown
to anyone outside the Bahá’í community is not possible to determine.
However, since The Bahá’í World volumes were intended for public
distribution and were formally presented to civic leaders and other
public officials, Locke’s name attached to a Bahá’í essay lent considerable prestige to the Faith.
“Impressions of Haifa” was Locke’s first public testimony of faith
in being a Bahá’í. Just as his first pilgrimage experience reinforced his
Bahá’í identity inwardly, Locke’s “Impressions of Haifa” reinforced
his Bahá’í identity outwardly. In a brief span of time, Locke had established high-level national and international contacts with some of the
most important Bahá’í leaders of his day.
In looking back on the significance of his first pilgrimage experience, Locke’s pilgrimage essay remains his most intimate testimony of
pilglrimage
101
faith as a Bahá’í. Locke concludes his narrative in saying:
Surely the cure for the ills of western materialism is here, waiting some more
psychological moment for its spread, for its destined mission of uniting in a
common mood western and oriental minds.
There is a new light in the world: there must needs come a new day.23
Here, Locke has a prevision of the “destined mission” of the Bahá’í
Faith, which is to unite East and West. If this is ever to take place, the
West must first achieve its own unity. Locke understood this clearly. In
secular terms, he expressed this prevision in terms of America becoming more truly a democracy, thereby gaining moral ground for assuming its world role to promote world democracy.
Following his pilgrimage in late November or early December,
Shoghi Effendi wrote a letter dated 24 December 1923, to the Spiritual
Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Washington, D.C., in which he admonishes
the Bahá’ís to banish every trace of prejudice from their midst. As this
concerns Locke’s Bahá’í community in particular, it is worthwhile to
reproduce the letter in full:
To the beloved of the Lord and the handmaids of the Merciful
in Washington, D. C., U. S. A.
Care of members of the Washington Spiritual Assembly
Beloved Friends!
May I, whilst awaiting with fresh hope the joyful tidings of the progress
of your work, assure you, my dear friends, of my feelings of Admiration for,
and unshaken confidence in, the unquenchable spirit of service which animates every one of you in your daily labours for His Cause.
I wish you, my dearly beloved co-workers to remain, however stupendous be the task, staunch and convinced supporters of that true Faith which
alone can bring salvation to this sadly-stricken world. Our numbers may be
small, our goal yet distant, our voice still to be raised in the councils of men,
and the plight of the world wherein we toil and labour enough to blight the
highest hopes, yet does not our beloved Master desire us to feel, nay to be
truly convinced, that if we but hold fast to our faith, there will soon emerge
out of this gloom and turmoil a new world order wherein His chosen ones are
destined to play so noble and memorable a part?
I should be most pleased to hear that, with the trace of every difference
and ill-feeling banished from your ranks, you have joined hands, combined
your efforts, unified your purpose and directed your aim in endeavouring
to win, not only the admiration and sympathy of the peoples of eminence
and culture in your flourishing City, but also their active and whole-hearted
allegiance for the promotion of the Baha’i Cause. May all the energy, time
and treasure which you so abundantly and steadfastly expend in His service
102
alain locke: faith & philosophy
be directed to those efficient channels which alone can reveal to the general
public, as well as to the leaders and rulers of that great Capitol, the true significance of this Divine Revelation.
That the Call which has now been raised in every Continent of the world
will some day resound in the heart of Washington, none of us can ever doubt,
yet how sooner and fuller that awakening shall be if we, who have already
recognized His Voice, bestir ourselves, first to deepen and unite, and then to
arise as one triumphant host combating, by the example of our life and the
sublimity of the Divine Utterance, those dark forces of evil which but for His
redeeming Message are sure to engulf the world.
Every aim, and every purpose, however lofty and desirable for the
advancement of the Cause, should, in this day, be subordinated to the vital and
pressing need of delivering GOD’s Divine Message to waiting humanity. Not
that all other issues should be forgotten and suffer neglect, but rather that this
matter of urgent importance be given, by all the friends, the widest publicity
and the fullest support, as I feel, it is the most direct, the most feasible, the
most effective means for the immediate expansion of the Cause we love so
dearly.
May the believers in every land contribute their share in this supreme
endeavor!
Your brother and fellow-worker,
(signed) Shoghi.
Haifa, Palestine
December 24th, 192324
This letter must have been written in response to reports of racial
and other tensions within Locke’s local Bahá’í community. While
there is no mention of this in his “Impressions of Haifa,” Locke must
surely have discussed with Shoghi Effendi the state of affairs of the
Washington Bahá’í community. This was a very real and direct way
in which the Guardian would keep abreast of developments within
the Bahá’í world. Pilgrims like Locke provided a flow of valuable
information that, at various times, informed Shoghi Effendi’s decisions
as leader of the Bahá’í world. Despite the fact that the Washington
Bahá’í community had been the first to actively reach out to African
Americans, it was also subject to the challenges and vicissitudes of
racial integration in an era inhospitable to it.
Notes
1. “Baha’i Faith, Only Church in World That Does Not Discriminate.” Ebony,
Vol. 7 (12 October 1952) pp. 39-46.
2. Reprints:
pilglrimage
103
1924: Alain Locke, “Impressions of Haifa,” Star of the West, Vol. 15, no. 1
(1924) pp. 13-14. Original manuscript in Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164115, Folder 29 (“Impressions of Haifa” [typescript]).
1926: Reprint: Alaine (sic) Locke, “Impressions of Haifa,” in Bahá’í Year
Book, Volume One, April 1925-April 1926, comp. National Spiritual Assembly
of the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada (New York: Bahá’í Publishing
Committee, 1926) pp. 81, 83.
1928: Reprint: Alaine (sic) Locke, “Impressions of Haifa,” in The Bahá’í
World: A Biennial International Record, Volume II, April 1926-April 1928, comp.
National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada (New
York: Bahá’í Publishing Committee, 1928; reprint, Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing
Trust, 1980) pp. 125, 127.
1930: Reprint: Alain Locke, “Impressions of Haifa,” in The Bahá’í World: A
Biennial International Record, Volume III, April 1928-April 1930, comp. National
Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada (New York:
Bahá’í Publishing Committee, 1930; reprint, Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust,
1980) pp. 280, 282.
3. Locke to Cullen, n.d. [1923], Box 3, Fol. Locke, Countee Cullen Papers,
Amistad Research Center, Tulane University.
4. Locke to Cullen, 12 July 1923, Box 3, Fol. Locke, Countee Cullen Papers,
Amistad Research Center, Tulane University.
5. Editor’s introduction to Alain Locke, “Impressions of Luxor,” The Howard
Alumnus, vol. 2, no. 4 (May 1924) p. 74.
6. Visa, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-2, Folder 2 (Personal Papers—
Passports, 1922, 1924).
7. Lewis, When Harlem Was in Vogue, pp. 87 and 324, citing “Locke to Cullen,
n.d. (1923), Box 3, Fol. Locke: CCP/ARC.” This refers to the the Cullen-Locke
correspondence in the Countee Cullen Papers, Amistad Research Center, Tulane
University (p. 309). Having subsequently ordered this correspondence myself, I
noticed that Locke used the term, “Bahaist.” Locke to Cullen, n.d. [1923], Box 3,
Fol. Locke, Countee Cullen Papers, Amistad Research Center, Tulane University.
8. Hughes and Locke to Cullen, postcard dated 31 August 1923 (Verona), Box 3,
Fol. Locke, Countee Cullen Papers, Amistad Research Center, Tulane University.
Both Locke and Hughes wrote greetings on the same postcard, with Locke saying:
“We are together here again. Wishing we were three instead of two.”
9. Locke and Hughes to Cullen, postcard dated 26 July 1923 (Paris), Box 3, Fol.
Locke, Countee Cullen Papers, Amistad Research Center, Tulane University. As in
the Verona postcard, Locke and Hughes wrote separate messages on the same card.
Locke begins: “ ‘See Paris and die’—Meet Langston and be damned’.”
10. Research Department, Bahá’í World Center, Memorandum to The Universal
House of Justice, 26 December 2001.
11. Locke to Cullen (n.d., 1923), Box 3, Fol. Locke, Countee Cullen Papers,
Amistad Research Center, Tulane University.
12. Research Department, Bahá’í World Center, Memorandum to The Universal
House of Justice, 12 June 2002.
13. Locke, “Impressions” (1930), 280.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid., p. 282.
104
alain locke: faith & philosophy
16. Ibid., p. 280.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid., 282.
20. Ibid.
21. Research Department, Bahá’í World Center, Memorandum to The Universal
House of Justice, 12 June 2002.
22. From a letter dated 12 March 1926 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to
the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada
Publishing Committee, “References to Dr. Alain Locke in Letters Written on
Behalf of Shoghi Effendi,” Attachment, The Universal House of Justice to Buck,
16 July 2001.
23. Locke, “Impressions” (1930), p. 282.
24. Shoghi Effendi to the Washington, D.C. Bahá’í Assembly, 24 December 1923,
Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-79, Folder 9 (Rabbani, Shoghi).
THE HARLEM RENAISSANCE, 1925-1934
brought African-American music, dance, artistic and
literary achievement into the mainstream of American culture.
Chapter Seven
Harlem Renaissance and Bahá’í Service
In his lifelong quest to improve race relations, Locke probably made
the greatest social impact as the strategist and spokesman of the Harlem
Renaissance.1 At least this is how history best remembers him. But his
greatest personal contributions to race relations in America were probably the distinguished record of Bahá’í service he rendered in the path
of “race amity” and, more significantly perhaps, in his role as a cultural pluralist. In promoting “racial democracy” as one component of
his comprehensive model of “world democracy”—what Locke would
later refer to as a “new Americanism”—Locke placed race relations in
a global perspective. During the Harlem Renaissance, was enjoying his
most active time as a Bahá’í.
After Haifa (1924): While Locke was abroad, it he did much more than
simply make his Bahá’í pilgrimage. For instance, in a letter dated 9
October 1924, W. E. B. Du Bois wrote: “My dear Mr. Locke: Claude
McKay writes me that you had an interview with Ras Tafari [the
King of Ethiopia]. Would you not like to write an account of it for the
CRISIS? We would be glad to pay a very modest sum. I hope this will
welcome you back from your trip.”2
After his trip to Haifa, Azizullah S. Bahadur wrote a letter dated 27
February 1924 in reply to Locke’s letter from Egypt. It reads, in part:
Jinab-i-Fadil has written to Shoghi Effendi and me about you and has given a
nice description of the day when he had lectured at your university. —Shoghi
107
108
alain locke: faith & philosophy
Effendi was very glad indeed to hear from you and learn that you have been
in good health. He cherishes in his loving heart great hope for your spiritual
success. People as you, Mr. Gregory, Dr. Esslemont and some other dear souls
are as rare as diamond. You should first be mindful of your physical health
and then take steps along the channel of the regeneration of mankind. The
world, more than ever, is in need of spiritual nourishment. You are the chosen
ones to render this service to the lifeless world in this present stage.3
Jináb-i Fadil (Mírzá Asadu’lláh Fadil-i Mázandarání) traveled throughout the United States as a Bahá’í teacher between 1920 and 1925. It is
not clear whether or not Locke and Fadil ever met.
Locke really had two local Bahá’í communities. His second home
was New York, where he would be instrumental in valorizing the
Harlem Renaissance in 1925, and to which he would retire in 1953.
This explains Locke’s participation in a number of Bahá’í events in
New York, the first being the third race amity convention.
Race Amity Convention, New York: The race amity conventions,
originally conceived by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, were intended from the start
to be ongoing. They were supposed to serve as a model that would be
“exported” and creatively adapted in localities across America. They
were instruments for the promotion of interracial harmony. In that
sense, they almost took on the role of an institution unto themselves.
But, like all institutions, they required popular support to keep functioning. Happily, this would be the case for 1924.
After a hiatus after the Springfield convention, and with perhaps a
need for greater time in the planning process, the third amity convention was held in New York on 28-30 March 1924. This event went a
step further than the previous two amity conventions in Washington and
Springfield. The organizers invited representatives from the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP),
the National Urban League, and the Committee on International
Cooperation of the League of Women Voters. This move was of profound importance, for the Bahá’í organizers enlisted the support of
influential organizations whose humanitarian principles were consonant with Bahá’í ideals. Moreover, the participation of these organizations, especially the NAACP, served as a tacit endorsement of the
Bahá’í initiative, with an assent to the objectives of that initiative. The
collaboration of these organizations was all the more unusual given that
harlem renaissance and bahá’í service
109
the Bahá’í Faith was not a mainstream religion, was typically regarded
with suspicion by the populace at large, and was marginal at best in its
influence.
Another significant development was the universalizing of race
relations. This advanced the agenda beyond a primary focus on blackwhite relations. The scope of the program broadened to embrace other
races and ethnic minorities. If a race-relations initiative is too narrowly
focused on the black-white encounter, it misses other populations.
Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans, for example, are left out.
As with any successful event, well-known speakers draw crowds.
Considerable advance planning, negotiations, and logistics are required
to arrange for such speakers. After all, an event without audience or
publicity is a failed event, and the organizers, which now included
civic groups as well as Bahá’ís, were intent on making this event a
resounding success. Much to the their credit, some impressive speakers
were lined up. These included Alain Locke himself; along with James
Weldon Johnson, secretary of the NAACP; Franz Boas, Professor of
Anthropology at Columbia University; Jane Addams; John Herman
Randall of the Community Church; Rabbi Stephen S. Wise; and
Mountfort Mills, officially representing the Bahá’ís.4 The success of the
New York convention surpassed that of its two predecessors. According
to Gayle Morrison, it “put the New York Bahá’í community, which had
already been actively teaching in Harlem, into the forefront of Bahá’í
racial amity activities for many years to come.”5 Unfortunately, there is
no record of Alain Locke’s speech, or even the title of it.
Franz Boas was arguably the most important speaker at the convention. It was he who had, for the first time in American history, advanced
a sound scientific argument that could expose the pretensions and
debunk the claims of pseudo-scientific racism. Bahá’ís instinctively
sensed the the moral and spiritual importance of what Boas was doing
in the name of science. Their collaboration at this event worked powerfully.
Boas had significant contacts with Bahá’ís. How this came about is
not clear. It is safe to say that Locke idolized Boas. He publicly praised
Boas as a “major prophet of democracy.”6 He was widely regarded by
intellectual historians as one who “did more to combat race prejudice
than any other person in history.”7 Single-handedly, Boas had exploded
the myth of “scientific racism.” He had exposed the racist assumptions that underlay this pseudo-science and the widespread acceptance
110
alain locke: faith & philosophy
it commanded. Boas showed that race has no real basis in scientific
fact. In 1915, Locke began his lectures by asserting Boas’s distinction between racial difference and racial inequality: racial difference
is biological; racial inequality is social.8 The conference organizers
could not have found a more significant speaker. “Indeed, no one was
better qualified,” as Morrison rightly observes, “to challenge the myth
of white superiority.”9
Appointment by the National Spiritual Assembly to Interracial Amity
Committee: As impressive as Boas was, the presence of Alain Locke
himself lent considerable prestige to the convention. He was a celebrity
in his own right, owing to the renown he achieved when he became
America’s first black Rhodes Scholar in 1907. Locke’s presence, in
concert with the overall success of the event, led to a kind of institutionalization of it. According to Morrison, this event “seems to have
spurred the appointment of an Amity Convention Committee by the
National Spiritual Assembly of the United States and Canada.”10
In what was marked “Assembly Letter No. 1,” the National
Bahá’í Assembly sent out a letter dated 19 May 1924, addressed “To
the Assemblies of the United States and Canada,” which announced
appointments of eight national committees. The Assembly appointed
Locke to the National Amity Convention Committee. Members
included Agnes Parsons, Elizabeth Greenleaf, Mariam Haney, Alain
Locke, Mabel Ives, Louise Waite, Louise Boyle, Roy Williams (another
black Bahá’í), Philip R. Seville, and Mrs. Atwater.11 Locke’s response
to his appointment was enthusiastic, for he saw considerable value in
these race amity conferences. In a letter dated 22 May 1924, Locke
wrote:
May 22, 1924
Dear Mrs. Parsons,
I received word today of the appointment on the Inter-Amity [sic]
Committee, and am especially anxious to contribute my share to its conferences and findings. Especially because I have had such ill-luck with regard to
the Washington meetings this year, when it seems that on quite every occasion
I have either had some official University business or had some out of town
obligation.
Again this week-end I must go to New York, but will get in touch with
you Monday to ascertain your early convenience with respect to a personal
harlem renaissance and bahá’í service
111
conference and the work of the committee.
With best Bahai greetings,
Sincerely yours,
Alain Locke12
Locke’s work with this committee resulted in another successful
amity convention. This time, it would be held in Philadelphia, Locke’s
hometown.
Fourth Racial Amity Convention, Philadelphia: Continuing his active
involvement, both as planner and participant, Locke was one of the
featured speakers at the “Convention for Amity Between the White
and Colored Races in America Auspices of the Bahá’í Movement.”
This event was held 22-23 October 1924, in the Witherspoon Building
at Juniper and Walnut Streets in Philadelphia. In addition to the assistance provided by Agnes Parsons, Louis Gregory, and Roy Williams,
other individuals made significant contributions. Louise Boyle worked
on publicity. Charles Mason Remey, a wealthy Bahá’í of Washington,
D.C., made signs and distributed programs.13 The printed program
stated:
This is the fourth in a series of Inter-racial Congresses arranged under the auspices of the Bahá’í Movement. The first was held in 1921 at Washington, D.C.,
the second at Springfield, Mass, and the third at New York City, the purpose
being to awaken the people of America to the need of a clearer understanding
of inter-racial problems, and a deeper realization of their spiritual solution as
set forth in the teachings of the world’s greatest prophets and leaders.14
The program was sent out in advance. It featured six passages from
the writings of Bahá’u’lláh and a quotation from Jesus (“These things
I command you, that ye love one another.”) Clergymen throughout
Philadelphia received copies of the program, with a cover letter from
Jessie Revell, secretary of the Philadelphia Bahá’í Spiritual Assembly.
Several ministers were reported to have distributed the program to their
congregations on the Sunday preceding the event. The convention was
well publicized both before and after by the Philadelphia Tribune, a
local African American newspaper. As a result, around six hundred
people attended the first session, which was chaired by Horace Holley
of New York. (As with previous conventions, the chairpersons were
Bahá’ís.) Lectures were presented by Quaker speaker Agnes L. Tierney
112
alain locke: faith & philosophy
and by Leslie Pinckney Hill, black principal of the Cheyney Training
School for Teachers, and a Bahá’í as well. The session received excellent press coverage. Particularly noteworthy was a lengthy article
published in the local Jewish World urging people to attend. All this
had a definite impact. During the second session, nine hundred people
attended.15
The second session, held on Thursday evening, October 23, was
presided over by Dr. Zia M. Bagdadi. Instead of a Bahá’í prayer,
the session commenced with an invocation by the Rev. John M.
Henderson, pastor of the African Methodist Episcopal Church in
Morton, Pennsylvania. Locke gave a presentation on “Negro Art and
Culture.”16 Later that evening, Louis Gregory spoke on “Inter-racial
Amity.”17 The two other speakers included Judge John M. Patterson of
Philadelphia and Hooper Harris, a Bahá’í from New York.18
Here, an interesting pattern can be observed. As with the previous
two race amity conventions, Locke was neither introduced as a Bahá’í
speaker, not did he identify himself as such. But Locke was not acting
alone. He worked in concert with the conference organizers. Indeed, he
was one of them. Of course, he could have simply expressed his preference not to be publicly identified as a Bahá’í, and his fellow Bahá’ís
would have respected his wish. Had the event been too dominated by
Bahá’í speakers, the balance of Bahá’í and non-Bahá’í speakers would
have been upset, possibly to the detriment of the program itself, particularly the public’s perception of it. The balance was this: Dr. Bagdadi’s
presence was balanced by the Rev. John M. Henderson. The presence
of the two public Bahá’ís, Louis Gregory and Hooper Harris, balanced
the ostensibly secular speakers, John M. Patterson and Alain Locke.
During the first session, it may have been that Leslie Pinckney
Hill was also not identified as a Bahá’í. Another possible wisdom in
this is that the church was the backbone of the black community. Too
strong of a Bahá’í presence may have alarmed the more conservative
Christian elements. The last thing the Bahá’ís wanted was to have their
work undone by igniting a religious controversy. There is a psychology of unity that attaches to the effective prosecution of it. No matter
how noble the principles, the speakers and others on the program were
equally important.
Whatever the case, the impact of the event and its place in history
are difficult to assess. As Morrison observes:
harlem renaissance and bahá’í service
113
The Philadelphia amity convention, like those that preceded it, cannot be
evaluated simply in terms of measurable results. Unlike anything like an antilynching crusade, or some other campaign directed toward a specific problem
or grievance, the amity convention attempted to promote fundamental attitudinal change about human rights and the universality of human dignity.
Progress in such an endeavor can scarcely be perceived, let alone evaluated.
Indeed, even the most concrete forces shaping the movement for black equality in the twentieth century . . . are difficult to assess.19
Harlem Renaissance and Bahá’í Travels (1925): On his return from
Egypt, Locke found Howard in upheaval due to a student strike. On
15 June 1925, Locke was fired from Howard University by its white
president James Stanley Durkee for Locke’s support of an equitable
faculty pay scale and for student demands to end mandatory chapel
and ROTC.20 At this time, Locke had given thirteen years of service
at Howard, five of which were as full professor and head of the
Department of Philosophy. Locke’s own summary of what had happened is, in part, as follows: “By action of the Executive Committee
of the Board of Trustees of Howard University, Washington D.C., four
teachers were summarily dismissed on June 15th (notification the following day), to take effect as of June 30th, without previous intimation
of likely dismissal or definite official notice of charges of inefficiency
or misconduct.”21 Locke clearly blamed President Durkee, whose
wishes in this matter were supported by the Board—a body that Locke
characterized as “collectively as stupid and arbitrary as he is individually.”22
In protest against the firing of Locke and three other dissident
faculty members, students staged an eight-day strike. In an undated
letter to W. E. B. Du Bois written in 1925, Locke mentions the student
strike: “So the students struck, placarded the campus with slogans
directed both against the President personally and the faculty, maintained a cordon around the building[,] gave out press notices of their
side of the issue, and for four days we were in anarchic upheaval.”23
The Board of Trustees voted to give Locke a leave of absence with
full pay, beginning 1 July 1925, for one year. But, on 30 June 1926,
the Board stipulated that “all connection of these persons with the
University shall cease.”24 He did not return to Howard University until
its new black president, Mordecai Johnson (elected by the Howard
Board of Regents in June 1926), reinstated him.
114
alain locke: faith & philosophy
Following his dismissal, since he was no longer employed and his
income would run out within a year, Locke needed to find support of
his intellectual work. He found his patron in Charlotte Osgood Mason,
a wealthy white woman, with whom Locke faithfully corresponded
until her death in 1940. It is possible that Agnes Parsons introduced
Locke to her. In a letter dated 21 October 1922 to Parsons, Locke wrote:
“Thank you indeed for telling us of Mrs. Osgood and the work she is
doing.”25 One source states that “Locke’s annual trips to Europe were
financed for thirteen years, and he may have received other funds.”26
To a great extent, because he was beholden to her for financial support,
Locke was under her influence in spiritual matters as well as in artistic
concerns. However, he seemed to have been able to maintain his Bahá’í
commitments. Locke was multifaceted and could be, in a sense, all
things to all people.
Locke as a “Cultural Racialist”: In 1911, fourteen years prior to
the Harlem Renaissance, Locke resolved to promote the interests of
African Americans as a result of his direct experience with racism in
the South. In an unpublished autobiographical note, Locke reflected on
the circumstances that led to this momentous decision in his life and
career:
Returning home in 1911, I spent six months travelling in the South—my
first close-range view of the race problem—and there acquired my life-long
avocational interest in encouraging and interpreting the artistic and cultural
expression of Negro life, for I became deeply convinced of its efficacy as an
internal instrument of group inspiration and morale and as an external weapon
of recognition and prestige.
So, while teaching philosophy at Howard University from 1912 to the
present, I have devoted most of my literary effort and time to this avocational
interest of Negro culture, with occasional excursions into the sociological
side of the race question. My connection with the literary and art movement,
styled in 1925 the “New Negro” renaissance, was thus a logical outcome of
this artistic creed and viewpoint.27
In its mythic and utopian sense, Harlem was the “race capital” of
America and the largest “Negro American” community in the world.
The Harlem Renaissance, consequently, presented itself as a microcosm or “self-portraiture” of black culture. The movement was an effusion of art borne of the experience of “even ordinary living” that has
“epic depth and lyric intensity.”28 As editor of the anthology The New
harlem renaissance and bahá’í service
115
Negro, Locke contributed the title essay, which served as a manifesto.
For Locke, art needed to contribute to the improvement of life—a
pragmatist aesthetic principle Richard Shusterman calls “meliorism.”29
The Harlem Renaissance sought to advance freedom and equality for
blacks through art. It was “not just a great creative outburst in the stimulating atmosphere of the 1920s,” it was “actually a highly self-conscious modern artistic movement.”30 Locke himself spoke of a “race
pride,” “race genius,” and the “race-gift.”31 This “race pride” was to be
cultivated through developing a distinctive culture, a hybrid of African
and African American elements.32 Locke had hoped the Harlem
Renaissance would provide “an emancipating vision to America”
and would advance “a new democracy in American culture.”33 But
the Harlem Renaissance was more of an aristocratic than democratic
approach to culture.34 In principle, Locke was an avowed supporter of
W. E. B. Du Bois’ idea of a cultural elite (the “Talented Tenth”), but
differed with Du Bois’s insistence that art serve as propaganda.35
David Levering Lewis states that the Harlem Renaissance “evolved
through three phases”: (1) the first phase, ending with the publication
of Jean Toomer’s Cane in 1923, was deeply influenced by white writers
and artists who were fascinated by black life and culture (which Lewis
characterizes as “this new wave of white discovery”36) and sought
to promote it; (2) the second phase (early 1924 to mid-1926) saw the
collaboration of the “Talented Tenth” and “Negrotarian” whites within
the orbit of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP) and the Urban League, which were the twin pillars
of the civil rights establishment; and (3) the last phase (mid-1926 to
the Harlem Riot of March 1935), which was presided over by African
American artists and writers themselves.37 Thus there is a slight inconsistency in Lewis’s dates for the demise of the Harlem Renaissance,
whether it be the “its sputtering end in 1934”38 or the Harlem Riot of
March 1935.
Although spanning the years 1919-1934/35, the actual birth of
the Harlem Renaissance occurred in 1925, as Lewis notes: “Nineteen
Twenty-five—Year I of the Harlem Renaissance—ended with Albert
and Charles Boni’s publication of Locke’s book The New Negro, an
expanded and much polished publication of poetry and prose spun
off by the Opportunity contest and Survey Graphic.”39 But if the
official birth or launch of the Harlem Renaissance was in 1925, then
the conception and gestation of it took place during the previous year.
116
alain locke: faith & philosophy
According to Valerie Boyd, the Harlem Renaissance “had its formal
genesis on March 21, 1924,”40 at a dinner party of the Writers Guild
held in the Civic Club, a restaurant on 14 West Twelfth Street near Fifth
Avenue in Harlem. The new literary movement was actually christened
a week later when the New York Herald Tribune wrote that Harlem was
“on the edge of, if not already in the midst of, what might properly be
called a Negro renaissance.”41 However, according to Jeffrey Stewart,
who is currently writing a biography of Locke, it was Locke himself
who originally used the term “Renaissance” to describe the Harlem
cultural movement.42
Opportunity editor, sociologist Charles S. Johnson, had invited a
group of young writers and artists to what was then “the only uppercrust
New York club without color or sex restrictions.”43 The occasion was
in celebration of the publication of Jessie Redmon Fauset’s first novel,
There is Confusion.44 Around 110 people attended. Langston Hughes
was away in Paris, and Zora Neale Hurston had not been invited.
Alain Locke was the master of ceremonies on that “magic
evening.”45 At the Writers Guild dinner over which he presided, Locke
was recorded as saying: “They sense within their group—meaning the
Negro group—a spiritual wealth which if they can properly expound
will be ample for a new judgment and reappraisal of the race.”46 After
the great W. E. B. Du Bois spoke, Locke introduced Carl Van Doren,
white editor of Century magazine, who proclaimed: “What American
literature decidedly needs at this moment is color, music, gusto, the free
expression of gay or desperate moods. If the Negroes are not in a position to contribute these items, I do not know what Americans are.”47
After the dinner ended, Paul Kellog, editor of the Survey Graphic (a
national reform journal), approached Charles Johnson and made an
“unprecedented offer” to “devote an entire issue to the subjects as
treated by representatives of this group.”48 After the deal was struck,
Johnson asked Alain Locke to solicit and edit manuscripts for that very
project. A deadline was set: March 1925.
Scholars agree that the birth of the Harlem Renaissance had everything to do with Alain Locke’s editing and publication of The New
Negro. A showpiece for gifted young African American writers and
artists drawn to the cultural Mecca of Harlem, The New Negro defined
the Harlem Renaissance. Connecting the Renaissance idea and black
life in Harlem,49 Locke wrote the movement’s manifesto and awakened
America at large to the richness and beauty of African and African
harlem renaissance and bahá’í service
117
American culture. Never before had Negro art received such recognition. This was more than art appreciation, however. It was a strategy for
creating a new respect and admiration for black culture as a part of the
wider American culture. Locke had faith in “art and letters as a bridge
across the chasm between the races” and believed, according to Mark
Helbling, “art signified accomplishment and the artist symbolized and
expressed the conscience of his race.”50 Although decidedly elitist,
artists are ambassadors and cultural leaders. In Locke’s view, artists
and writers might gain the respect of “foreign” (white) power brokers
under a Jim-Crow America. For these reasons, I have called Locke
“the Martin Luther King of African American culture”51 insofar as the
Harlem Renaissance established a racial pride and group consciousness
among African Americans that was a necessary precondition for the
Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.
The Harlem Renaissance introduced the poetry of Langston
Hughes, Countee Cullen, and Charles McKay, the novels of Zora
Neale Hurston, the music of jazz musician Duke Ellington and blues
singer Bessie Smith, the performances of Josephine Baker and Paul
Robeson, and the visual arts of painter Aaron Douglas and Winold
Reiss, and sculptor Richmond Barthe, among others. It should also be
remembered that white artists were involved in the movement as well,
although it is the white patrons like Charlotte Osgood Mason whom
history remembers most.
While a graduate student at Oxford, Locke had studied the Italian
Renaissance and was inspired by Jakob Burckhardt’s notion of the
Renaissance as a period in which European civilization was reborn
and flourished, freeing people from the constraints on self-expression
imposed by the church during Europe’s Dark Ages. Jeffery Stewart
suggests that Locke used the term “Renaissance” in two ways. First, he
drew parallels between the Italian and the Harlem Renaissances, even
though he conceded that the art produced by the Italian Renaissance
was superior to what was produced in Harlem.52 Even so, Stewart
draws two phenomenological parallels between the two.
There were some startling parallels, from a sociological perspective. Both
movements were urban rather than rural. Both rebelled against the power of
the church, which was a particularly strong institution in both Italy and the
African American community. Like Renaissance Humanists, Locke recommended that African American artists look back to African art for inspiration,
118
alain locke: faith & philosophy
just as the Renaissance artists had looked back to classical Greek sculpture
for their models. Like Jakob Burckhardt, Locke saw the Renaissance as the
birth of individuality for the first time for African Americans, who had been
thought of en masse as “them” for hundreds of years.53
Stewart points out that Locke created a new myth of national
proportions. Black civilization had been in a “deep sleep” ever since
the dislocation and culture shock prompted by slavery. The Harlem
Renaissance emerged from these “Middle Ages” through a rediscovery of the collective ancestral roots and cultural heritage of African
Americans of their “classical past.”
Elsewhere, Stewart gives this assessment of the impact of the
Harlem Renaissance: “For the first time in American culture, for better
or worse, African American creative artists could claim that there was
something distinctive about the Black experience, while at the same
time arguing that it was an integral part of the American experience.”54
The Harlem Renaissance began the process of forming an open-ended
black nationalism, in which African American artists (with whom
several white artists collaborated) began the process of reconstructing
their identity and enriching their heritage. Stewart observes:
For Locke, I believe, the Renaissance was more than simply a historical
period. The Renaissance was a way of thinking, a way of looking at one’s
past as part of a rebirth in pride in one’s people in the present. Renaissance
thinking was primarily idealistic thinking, a view of the world as something
one can construct and reconstruct through the agency of one’s artistic creativity. A renaissance was a period of national awakening and pride; but it was
also a commitment to Universalism, to expressing the travail and struggle of
one’s life and times in forms that transcended the particular circumstances
of their creation, and spoke to generations that came afterwards. And in that
sense, I believe the Harlem and Irish and Indian Renaissance are all part of the
Renaissance idea that we more normally associated with Italy in the 15th and
16th centuries. For the renaissance idea is not unique to 15th century Italy, but
perhaps a kind of universal metaphor of how a society renews itself.55
Much criticized by other African Americans, Locke himself came
to regret the Harlem Renaissance’s excesses of exhibitionism, after it
had dissolved a few years later.56 While the dazzling success of the
movement was short-lived, it had a more subtle, enduring influence.
According to Johnny Washington, the civil rights movement actually
had its roots, in a subterranean way, in the Harlem Renaissance: “Locke
was to the Harlem Renaissance what Martin Luther King, Jr., was to
harlem renaissance and bahá’í service
119
the civil rights movement of the 1960s.”57 In the end, however, the
efflorescence of black culture failed to lead to civil and political rights
for African Americans. Eventually, as Posnock points out, “Locke
enunciated his theory of cosmopolitanism post facto, after the Harlem
Renaissance, his principal site of engagement, had largely run its
course.”58 As Locke matured in his philosophical thinking, he favored
open identities over closed social identities.
There was a certain synchronicity and synergy between Locke’s
cultural nationalism and Bahá’í universalism. In his ongoing affiliation with the Bahá’í Faith,59 Locke continued to act in concert with
the Bahá’í community. So long as the Faith maintained race relations
as its top priority, Locke was ready and able, to assist as needed.
Throughout his career as a Bahá’í, there is almost a formulaic correlation between Locke’s Bahá’í activities and specific requests made of
him by Bahá’ís.
Bahá’í Congress, Green Acre: From 4-9 July 1925, the Seventeenth
Annual Convention and Bahá’í Congress were held at Green Acre,
“rustic in scenes, beautiful in location, famous for its universal
spirit.”60 Evidently, these were two concurrent but distinct events.
The Bahá’í Congress opened on Sunday afternoon, July 5. While its
purpose was to promote Bahá’í teaching efforts, the conference theme
was “The Dawn of Peace.” Howard McNutt presided. The first speaker
was Alain Locke, whose address was on the topic of “Universal Peace.”
The following is a published summary of what Locke said:
Dr. Alain LeRoy Locke of Washington, D.C., delivered a polished address,
portraying the great part which America can play in the establishment of
world peace, if alive to its opportunity. The working out of social democracy
can be accomplished here. To this end we should not think in little arcs of
experience, but in the big, comprehensive way. Let our country reform its
own heart and life. Needed reforms cannot be worked out by the action of
any one group, but a fine sense of cooperation must secure universal fellowship. He praised Green Acre, which he declared to be an oasis in the desert
of materiality. He urged all who were favored by this glorious experience to
carry forth its glorious message and thus awaken humanity. In final analysis,
peace cannot exist anywhere without existing everywhere.61
Here, as in his Bahá’í essays, Locke mixes secular with Bahá’í
forms of discourse. Bahá’ís were not accustomed to hearing the
technical term “social democracy.” This reflects a mind gifted with
120
alain locke: faith & philosophy
synthetic powers. Already an articulate speaker, Locke naturally and
seamlessly merges Bahá’í ideals with social-science discourse, which
informs his philosophical orientation, cultural pluralism. Locke’s thesis
that: “Needed reforms cannot be worked out by the action of any one
group,” is a clear reference to those Bahá’ís who might hold that all the
cures for humanity’s ills are to be found within the Bahá’í community.
Locke insisted that “a fine sense of fellowship must secure universal
fellowship.”
Speeches by Bahá’í artist Juliet Thompson of New York and
William H. Randall rounded out the Congress. Juliet Thompson represented Mme. D’Arcis, President of the World Union of Women for
International Concord, in which she read a prepared statement by the
latter as part of her talk. William Randall’s concluding speech, “The
Dawn of Peace,” was focused exclusively on the Bahá’í perspective.
The election of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís by
the assembled delegates followed this event. Locke was not elected;
however, he was reappointed to the National Race Amity Committee.
Reappointment to Amity Committee: Locke was reappointed to the
Racial Amity Committee for the 1925-1926 Bahá’í year. This was his
second committee appointment. With the exception of Philip R. Seville,
the National Spiritual Assembly reappointed the previous committee
members.62
The previous amity committee had planned for a convention to
be held in April 1925.63 Perhaps due to a conflict with the aforementioned Seventeenth Annual Convention and Bahá’í Congress held at
Green Acre, no race amity convention was held. It is too bad that such
an important public event had to compete with an event for Bahá’ís
only. In fact, there were no race amity conventions in 1925 or 1926.64
According to Morrison: “The failure to hold amity conventions in
1925 or 1926 was at least partly attributable to lack of enthusiasm in
Washington, D.C., where the committee was centered.”65 Nationally,
this problem was exacerbated by a serious shortfall of funds combined
with an overall stagnation in growth.
Protest Against Lynching: One would naturally think that the Bahá’ís
would be unequivocally opposed to lynching. They were. But this
matter possibly never made it to the amity committee’s agenda.
harlem renaissance and bahá’í service
121
On 9 August 1925, Holley had written to Parsons to recommend
that the amity committee take a public stand against lynching. “The
news about another lynching in Missouri in yesterday’s paper filled me
with anguish,” he told her, “and I realized our great spiritual responsibility to overcome this terrible injustice.”66 Holley urged the committee
to publish a public statement in the Baha’i News Letter to serve as a
model for local committees. It was Holley’s wish that each Spiritual
Assembly write to its local newspaper “expressing the sorrow of the
Baha’is and their hope that the best citizens will combine and prevent
such terrible happenings in the future.” His alternative suggestion was
that he himself, in his capacity as secretary-general of the National
Assembly, could send a general statement to the mayor and town officials, to the governor of the state of Missouri and its senators, as well as
black organizations and newspapers. “Will you, as chairman,” Holley
asked, “draft the statement for the News Letter? Or if you prefer, I will
do it and print it over your name.”67
In her handwritten reply, Parsons confessed that she was at first
enthusiastic over the idea of “a protest against lynching.” But she had
been unable to write back immediately. Upon further consideration,
she later thought that such “a widespread protest” might stir up “an
antagonism toward us by the enemies of the colored people” that
could seriously compromise the amity work. “Booker T. Washington,”
she pointed out, “could never have accomplished what he did had his
method not been a purely constructive one.”68 This “purely constructive” method, of course, refers to Washington’s pragmatic and conservative solution to the racial and economic crisis by offering industrial
education to young blacks, especially in the rural South, and refraining
from all public protest.
In a letter dated 19 August 1925, Holley replied that he quite agreed
that “anything which would interfere with the great work of the Amity
Conventions would be most undesirable.” He went on to say, however,
that such was never his idea to begin with. He simply felt that such
letters “should express such a universal spirit that they would penetrate
at least a little light into the gloom of racial hatred.” Continuing in this
vein, Holley added:
I believe that this matter is something which you should take up with your
committee as soon as possible and report back your conclusions to the N.S.A.
As you know, the racial situation is rapidly approaching a climax and we
should do all in our power to bring healing to this mortal world. I question
122
alain locke: faith & philosophy
whether one or two Conventions a year, no matter how well conducted and
how spiritual in character, are sufficient alone to turn back the flood.
I know that you will consider this in the most sympathetic way and as a
means of assisting the Conventions and not interfering with them.69
Parsons responded that she had presented the recommendation
to Louis Gregory, Mariam Haney, and Louise Boyle, and that none
deemed such action “advisable.”70 It is ironic that in the first amity
convention back in 1921, the Hon. Martin B. Madden had spoken of
anti-lynching legislation in his lecture. Had Parsons sought Locke’s
advice, he surely would have counseled her to take a stand. Throughout
his professional career, both in person and in print, Locke took a public
stand against lynching. Had the Bahá’ís followed Locke’s example on
this decisive issue, which was really a litmus test of moral authenticity on race, the outcome might have been different. Of course, to take
a public position in advocacy of interracial harmony was no easy task
either. It really was a sort of public protest against lynching in the guise
of promoting interracial accord. By attacking the mentality behind
lynching at its root, Bahá’ís sought to extirpate such virulent bigotry at
the level of the soul, rather than at the level of the law.
Possibly this failure to act on the question of lynching was one of
the reasons why the committee ceased to be effective. As the committee’s efforts ground to a standstill, at least Locke personally arose to
take direct action to improve race relations. In this endeavor, he acted
in concert with Louis Gregory, although probably at the latter’s initiative.
Teaching Tour in the South: As an extension of his race amity work,
Locke undertook a lecture tour throughout the American South.71
Locke traveled with his friend and cohort, Louis Gregory. In a typewritten letter to Agnes Parsons, Gregory writes:
Washington D. C.
24 October, 1925.
Dear Mrs. Parsons:
Just a brief note yours of the 13th instant, the kind and generous spirit of
which is apparent. I can only let the matter rest with the hope and prayer that
in time all wounds will be healed. The closer such a relationship has been the
deeper and more sensitive the wounds that may be inflicted; but to the Spirit
and Power of the Divine Cause nothing is impossible. And I confidently feel
harlem renaissance and bahá’í service
123
that in the end all will be well.
I understand that your plans for an Amity Convention to be held here next
spring have had the approval of the National Spiritual Assembly. This is good
news indeed in view of the critical nature of the local situation which it may
go a long way toward helping. I hope that it will be possible with this new
effort to do wise and systematic follow up work.
With a day or two I am leaving for the far South, but hope after a few
months to return here to help in any way that is possible with this very noble
endeavor.
With Abha greetings and every good wish,
Very truly yours,
Louis G. Gregory.72
If Gregory had left as planned, and Locke with him, the teaching trip
would have commenced on 25 or 26 October 1925. However, a 1926
report states that the departure was actually later: “Leaving Washington
last December Mr. Gregory traveled by sea to Northern Florida and
made a complete tour of the state.”73 Morrison confirms that this tour
occurred in 1925.74 The trip lasted until the spring of 1926. How far
is not certain.75 In a handwritten letter dated 13 February 1926, from
Miller’s Hotel in Richmond, Gregory states: “It is my expectation to
reach Washington early next month, at the very latest, and I have pleasurable anticipations of again seeing you and others of that loyal and
devoted band.”76
In a letter dated 28 January 1926, Horace Holley wrote to Locke:
I am delighted that the plans have worked out so well for your southern trip. I
hope you will keep in touch with me during this trip and send me little memorandums of your public talks and any other news that might be of interest to
the friends in the Bahá’í News Letter. You understand, of course, that I will
present the story of your trip in an impersonal way and not refer to you as the
source of the news. Consequently, please do not be so modest that you lean
backward, because trips of this kind are most inspiring to all the friends and
I feel that they have a right to know the details of what I am sure is going to
be a remarkable speaking journey.77
It is clear that this trip must have ended before August 1926, as
Locke was in Paris at that time.78 Narrowing the time frame to a more
precise dating, the lecture tour must have taken place at some point
between October 1925 and March (or perhaps May) 1926. This can be
inferred from a statement that appeared in the Bahá’í News Letter: “Dr.
Alain Locke of Washington, D.C., who delivered one of the notable
addresses at the 1925 Convention in Green Acre, is now making an
extensive teaching journey into the Southern States which will bring
124
alain locke: faith & philosophy
him in touch with the most influential audiences and individuals.
Reports of this journey will be published from time to time.”79
Whether due to Locke’s disinclination to have such publicity or
for some other reason, only one other report of Locke’s trip appears in
the Bahá’í News Letter. After referring to the publication of The New
Negro “by Dr. Alain Locke, our brilliant Baha’i brother of Washington,
D.C. and New York City,” the article simply states:
Altogether inadequate has been the mention in previous issues of the News
Letter of the remarkable work carried on throughout the South during the
winter by Mr. Louis Gregory, Mr. Howard MacNutt, Dr. Locke and Mrs.
Louise Boyle. These teachers, in cooperation with the Spiritual Assembly of
Miami and many Baha’i groups and isolated believers, held an astounding
number of meetings from autumn to spring, in churches, schools, clubs and
private homes, with the result that a powerful concentration of spiritual forces
was focused on this great and important territory.80
As will be seen, this association with the Miami Bahá’ís was critical for
the future development of the Bahá’í Faith in the South.
The published accounts of this teaching trip are too general. They
leave us with very little idea as to what actually happened. However,
in the transcript for the 1926 Convention in a report from El Fleda
Spaulding on recent Bahá’í efforts in the South, there is reference to
Locke that indicates what his primary role may well have been: “The
delicate problems here are being ably handled by Mrs. Boyle, Mr.
Gregory and Mr. MacNutt. Dr. Locke also expects to speak before a
number of the Universities.”81 Some other details on Locke appear in
the Southern Regional Teaching Committee Report, which was read
into the transcript:
An important contribution to the teaching service has been rendered during
the past few months by Dr. Alain Locke of Washington, who is regarded by
many as the outstanding scholar of the Negro race in America. Having been
invited to address many universities and colleges in various parts of the
country Dr. Locke consented to present the Bahai Message to educators and
student groups, and has been able to touch the best Negro institutions in the
Middle South and Northern Florida. Before proceeding South he was called
to the Middle West and was thus enabled to give the message at the Dunbar
Forum of Oberlin, at Wilberforce University and at Indianapolis, Cleveland
and Cincinnati.
Dr. Locke has been everywhere received with marked distinction. He
writes of the deep spiritual refreshment experienced through his labours for
the Blessed Cause. Through special arrangement with the President, Mrs.
harlem renaissance and bahá’í service
125
Mary Bethune [,] he will make a return visit to the Daytona Industrial Institute
in May, and at that time will visit Mr. Dorsey of Miami as his guest to confer
on educational plans for the new city. He will also visit the Hungerford School
near Orlando in which Mr. Irving Bachellor and other distinguished people
are actively interested.82
Reference here to “Mr. Dorsey” deserves comment. According
to the report, D. A. Dorsey (Dana Albert Dorsey, Miami’s first black
millionaire) was the owner of the Dorsey Hotel, where weekly Bahá’í
meetings were held. The report states:
Its owner, Mr. D. A. Dorsey, is a colored financier, highly regarded by all
the promoters of Greater Miami. Having accumulated more than five million
dollars, he is now actively engaged in founding a Model Negro City near
Miami, in which he has donated a site for a Mashrak el Askar [Bahá’í House
of Worship].
It is the desire of Mr. Dorsey to use his wealth for the advancement of his
race and he will build schools, a university for the arts and sciences, a hospital, modern administration buildings and other institutions for the practical
and cultural progress of his people. He is a man of the highest moral character,
simple and unassuming, and respected by all—a noble-hearted God-directed
man.83
The report also confirms that Dorsey enrolled as a Bahá’í, having
“accepted the teachings wholeheartedly through the labours of Mr.
Louis Gregory and Mr. [Howard] MacNutt and are constantly bringing
people of all races to hear the Glad Tidings.”84 The fate of this model
city, the status of the land he endowed for a Bahá’í temple, as well as
solid information on Dorsey’s Bahá’í affiliation, require further investigation.
In the course of his public address on “The Oneness of Mankind,”
which he gave during the 1926 National Bahá’í Convention in San
Francisco, Louis Gregory related a story that might possibly have
involved Locke, who is not mentioned. While Gregory refers to the
fact that there were two black men in this account, one of whom was
Gregory himself, Locke’s identity as the other black man cannot be
proven.85
The year 1925, measured in Bahá’í terms, was an extraordinary
year for Locke. The combination of his speech on America at the
Bahá’í Congress, his continued service on the National Racial Amity
Committee, and his travel teaching tour of the Deep South stand out as
a testament to Locke’s depth of soul as an committed Bahá’í.
126
alain locke: faith & philosophy
Teaching Tour in the South: Although he served for a number of years
on various race amity committees, this Bahá’í tour would be Locke’s
lengthiest sustained service to the Bahá’í Faith. It is the only one in
which it could be said that virtually all of his focus was on promotion
of the religion and his every public act was in his capacity as a Bahá’í.
Because of the sparse and sketchy details at hand, a full reconstruction of this teaching trip eludes the historian. But what we do know
is quite significant. The teaching efforts had results of historic significance for Bahá’í history, the highlight of which was the formation of a
local Bahá’í council, the Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Miami,
although there is no evidence that Locke was directly involved.
Special Consultation with National Spiritual Assembly: In 1925 and
1926, the Bahá’í race amity work had been largely abandoned. Besides
deficits in the Bahá’í fund, coupled with a lull in general enthusiasm
for race amity efforts, there was another reason: The Bahá’í National
Assembly had shifted its primary focus from race amity to world unity
in its public relations. Racial unity was overshadowed by the broader
concern of world unity, notwithstanding the fact that the former is, of
course, a requisite of the latter.
Sooner or later, the National Spiritual Assembly would revisit the
race amity program that had been of such paramount importance to
‘Abdu’l-Bahá. This reconsideration was probably spurred by those
Bahá’ís like Louis Gregory who remained committed to the goal of furthering improved race relations in America, to which cause the Bahá’ís
could continue to make a special contribution. Such champions of race
amity would not fail in reminding the National Spiritual Assembly of
this primary obligation, the overarching ideal of world unity notwithstanding.
In taking its first step in reestablishing a consistent policy of support
for race amity initiatives, the National Assembly, in a letter dated 13
November 1926, invited a group of Bahá’ís to Chicago for a special
consultation on race to be held in January 1927. Each member of this
group of black and white Bahá’ís—Louis Gregory, Agnes Parsons,
Louise Boyle, Alain Locke, Leslie Pinckney Hill, Roy Williams, Dr.
Zia Bagdadi, Mariam Haney, and Coralie Cook—had a distinguished
history in Bahá’í race unity work. Either as a speaker, organizer, or
both, each consultant had been involved in at least one of the four amity
conventions. The invitation that Alain Locke and the other invitees had
harlem renaissance and bahá’í service
127
received read as follows:
In view of the overwhelming importance of the racial amity problem in
this country, and desiring to assist in any constructive plans that might be
advanced by those of the friends who have given this subject deepest thought,
the National Spiritual Assembly has voted to invite you to attend a special
conference on the subject of racial amity to be held in Washington, D.C. on
January 9th. The hope is that it will be possible for you to spend perhaps a
day as a committee in drawing up some constructive plan of promoting racial
amity and present this to the National Spiritual assembly at a joint meeting
the evening of the same day.86
Race Relations and Bahá’í Relations: Both on the Bahá’í side and as
a scholar, 1927 was a productive year. Although busy, Locke was still
unemployed, however. On the title page of Locke’s co-edited work
published this year, Plays of Negro Life, the words “Selected and Edited
by Alain Locke Formerly Professor of Philosophy, Howard University”
accentuates the fact that he had been fired in June 1925. Montgomery
Gregory, his co-editor, is similarly represented as “Formerly Professor
of Dramatics, Howard University, Director of The Howard Players.”
The book was illustrated by Aaron Douglas, whom Locke had distinguished as the “pioneering Africanist” and whom some historians later
hailed as “the father of Black American art.”87 Normally, such a publication would have been important for tenure. (Locke had already been
promoted to full professor). But what Locke needed was to get his job
back. Fortunately, he had some powerful and influential friends. In a
letter dated 5 May 1927, W. E. B. Du Bois wrote to Jesse E. Moorland,
to lobby for Locke’s reinstatement. Du Bois’s letter says, in part:
I am interested in having Alain Locke reinstated at Howard University. My
interest has nothing personal in it. While I have known Mr. Locke for sometime [sic], he is not a particularly close friend. I have not always agreed with
him, and he knows nothing of this letter. . . . Mr. Locke is by long odds the
best trained man among the younger American Negroes.88
The letter worked. Locke was reinstated in June 1927, under
Howard’s first black president Mordecai Johnson,89 although Locke
did not resume teaching there until 1928. This was because Locke
was offered a position as an exchange professor at Fisk University for
the 1927-1928 academic year. In the meantime, this year was another
significant period in which Locke made contributions to the race amity
128
alain locke: faith & philosophy
work. Picking up where the year 1926 left off, Locke’s first contribution in 1927 was to serve as a race-relations consultant to the National
Assembly.
Special Committee on Racial Amity: The special consultation with the
National Assembly took place on 8 January 1927, a day earlier than
had been originally proposed. Since he had already promised to assist
with preparations for the World Unity Conference in Dayton, Louis
Gregory was unable to attend. “Prof. Locke and Mrs. Boyle who are
particularly well informed with regard to the inter-racial work in the
Southern states,” Gregory assured the National Assembly in his letter
of 28 December 1926, “will doubtless be able to bring forth much that
is illuminating and helpful.”90 All but two of the members (Gregory
and Hill) of the Special Committee on Racial Amity were present.
The Committee had several recommendations to make. The first
was that the National Spiritual Assembly appoint a National Amity
Committee and that local Bahá’í Assemblies be encouraged to engage
in race amity work and to cooperate with the national committee in
such ventures. The next recommendation was that a national program
be formulated “to stimulate racial activity by the local Assemblies.”
Further to this, Bahá’ís should avail themselves of proclamation opportunities and that a concerted effort be made to reach people of capacity.
In other words, the recommended strategy was to inform “the wise
men of the nation” of the Bahá’í principles of interracial harmony.91
Apparently persuaded, the National Assembly immediately acted to put
at least some of these recommendations into practice. The first was the
appointment of a National Inter-Racial Amity Committee.
National Inter-Racial Amity Committee: On 14 January 1927, the
following members were appointed to National Inter-Racial Amity
Committee: Agnes Parsons (“Chairman”), Louis Gregory (Executive
Secretary), Louise Boyle, Mariam Haney, Coralie Cook, Zia M.
Bagdadi, Alain Locke.92 Not counting the ad hoc committee, this was
Locke’s third appointment. In a letter dated 10 July 1927 to Agnes
Parsons, Gregory lists the new Amity Committee members as: Mrs.
A. S. Parsons, chairman; Mrs. C. F. Cook, vice chairman; Louis G.
Gregory, executive secretary; Dr. Zia M. Bagdadi; Dr. Alain L. Locke;
Miss Elizabeth G. Hopper; Miss Isabel Ives. Gregory adds: “Any
departure from the above is only a clerical error. Unless some of those
harlem renaissance and bahá’í service
129
appointed have declined to serve, the committee stands as above.”93
The Eclipse of Racial Amity by World Unity: In November 1926,
in an effort to stimulate teaching, the National Spiritual Assembly
announced its “World Unity” initiative. This program was relatively
short-lived and unsuccessful. The focus was somewhat diffuse. In fact,
the conferences did not necessarily connect the concept of world unity
with Bahá’í teachings. This, in itself, disturbed a number of Bahá’ís,
who favored a direct teaching method over the indirect approach. The
several events that were staged failed to attract significant numbers of
people, other than Bahá’ís, though some of the conferences were of a
sufficiently high profile to create a favorable impression of the Faith in
intellectual circles and among liberal-minded people. While well intentioned, these conferences diverted attention away from the race amity
work, which stood in danger of being marginalized or even forgotten.
Louis Gregory kept the issue alive.94
The four-day Dayton World Unity Conference was held in 13-16
January 1927. While not a race amity convention in its own right,
Louis Gregory made a compelling case that world unity could not exist
without interracial unity. The former depended on the latter. Concerned
over the National Spiritual Assembly’s priority on world unity conferences at the expense of race amity, Gregory proposed that race at least
be integrated within the program itself: “if there are three sessions to
consider world unity,” he advised, “devote one to international unity,
another to religious unity and the third to inter-racial unity.”95 The
National Assembly took Gregory’s recommendation under advisement,
and implemented it. Meanwhile, there was trouble within the amity
committee itself.
Clash Within the Committee: By personal inclination, Agnes Parsons
would never have engaged in race-relations work had it not been for her
faithful execution of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s wishes. She exhibited a strange
combination of progressive reform and social conservatism. Despite
the fact that she spearheaded the first Bahá’í race amity efforts, which
was a radical move for any wealthy, white socialite by the standard
of that day, Agnes Parsons remained conservative. She expressed a
distinct preference for gradualism. Morrison suggests that “she found
herself stunned by the [amity] committee’s ambitions.”96 The crux of
the problem was this: Agnes Parsons favored an “indirect” strategy
130
alain locke: faith & philosophy
over direct teaching, whereas “the amity committee was interested only
in a more directly Bahá’í approach.”97 While she accepted racial amity
in principle, she did not fully make the necessary connection between
spiritual equality and “social equality” (i.e., racial integration).98
This clash of views was epitomized in the contrast between Agnes
Parsons and Louise Boyle, each of whom wrote to National Spiritual
Assembly secretary Horace Holley to apprise him of the problem.
Morrison discusses both letters.99 For these two letters to have been
written at virtually the same time points to a struggle of some magnitude. Parsons advocated proceeding with caution, “before we, as
Bahais, plunge into experiments.” In contrast, Boyle objected to “Mrs.
P’s conservatism in the Race question.” Boyle characterized Parsons’
attitude at “paternalistic.”100 No doubt due to Louis Gregory’s gift
as a peacemaker, the committee continued to function. It resolved its
internal problems. Measured by its achievements for this year, the committee was successful.
Shoghi Effendi’s Praise of Committee’s Message to North American
Bahá’ís: Race relations has almost always been at the top of the
national Bahá’í agenda. The National Committee on Inter-Racial Unity
wrote a circular letter, dated 23 February 1927, to the National Spiritual
Assembly and all local Spiritual Assemblies of the United States and
Canada. Louis Gregory, writing on behalf of this committee on which
Locke served, stressed the importance of race relations work and warranted its importance in statements made by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi
Effendi.101 The letter also announced a forthcoming compilation on
race relations that its members had assembled under the committee’s
auspices as part of its mandate.102
Comparatively speaking, this was a remarkable document. It contained seven specific recommendations: (1) “All the friends who at any
time have received Tablets or Instructions from ‘Abdu’l-Baha or letters
from Shoghi Effendi regarding race relations in America should send
well authenticated copies to the secretary of the Committee”103[Louis
Gregory], to guide the committee in its consultations and to provide
material for a Bahá’í compilation on race relations. The next step would
be: (2) “The compilation on race relations, when completed, should be
read by all the workers in the Cause and given wide circulation.”104
There was a second part to this recommendation: “The plan, programs
and addresses of the five Amity Conventions already held, as far as
harlem renaissance and bahá’í service
131
possible, should be studied as suggestions for new efforts.”105 This
recommendation presumes the existence of transcripts of these talks,
including those given by Locke.
The next recommendation concerns youth: (3) Here, Bahá’ís are
encouraged to focus on the “youth of America” who are “a fertile
field.” “The Baha’i teachings on the harmony of races,” the letter
continues to say, “have also been favorably received by many college
students. Those studying sociology, with their professors, are most
readily approached.”106 This recommendation, in particular, appears
to be Locke’s. He was partial to youth and, as a cultural pluralist,
viewed recent developments in the social sciences as the most promising secular resource for furthering ideal race relations. After pointing
out that a number of race-relations organizations have already been
formed outside the Baha’i context, the fourth recommendation goes on
to state: “(4) The Baha’i teachings should be brought to the attention
of such [non-Bahá’í] committees and organizations” and that Bahá’ís
should foster “consultation about race adjustments and how to right
specific wrongs.”107 This call for racial justice and specific redress
of wrongs is remarkable in itself. No information has come to light as
to how this recommendation may have been implemented, if indeed
it was. The language of “race adjustments” sounds much like Locke
and may represent one of his contributions to the committee’s general
recommentations.
The final recommendations were that: (5) “Each Assembly should
appoint a local inter-racial amity committee” that would serve as “an
adjunct of the National Committee on Inter-Racial Amity.”108 “In
arranging programs,” the letter further advises, “it should invite Baha’is
and outside speakers also, provided the latter are friendly to the Cause
and are willing to speak in accordance with its universal principles.”109
The presiding “Chairman of each session and at least one speaker at
each Amity Convention should be trained in the Baha’i Cause.”110 This
had consistently been the practice in the past five conventions. The
next recommendation (6) encourages Bahá’ís to acquaint other racerelations organizations with Bahá’í principles, and be ready to give out
Bahá’í literature on request. Finally, (7) is a polite disclaimer, stating
that these recommendations were simply offered as advice and that no
Bahá’í should interpret these as mandatory.
This report struck Shoghi Effendi very much and was praised by
him in a message that would impact the committee itself:
132
alain locke: faith & philosophy
I have . . . received and read with the keenest interest and appreciation a copy
of that splendid document formulated by the National Committee on interracial amity. . . . This moving appeal, so admirable in its conception, so sound
and sober in its language, has struck a responsive chord in my heart. Sent
forth at a highly opportune moment in the evolution of our sacred Faith, it has
served as a potent reminder of these challenging issues which still confront in
a peculiar manner the American believers.111
Whenever Shoghi Effendi praised anything, the Bahá’ís took such
approval seriously. This ringing endorsement of the National Committee
on Inter-Racial Unity was crucial to the committee’s very survival,
largely through the Bahá’í perception of its sustained relevance. Like
race-relations work generally, the committee led a sometimes precarious existence. Shoghi Effendi’s message went far towards sustaining
support for the committee and its important work.
The New Haven World Unity Conference: At heart, the Bahá’í Faith
preaches a gospel of unity. Its ultimate social mission is to bring about
world unity. Since this is such an all-encompassing goal, it would make
perfect sense for Bahá’í institutions to look to this single objective as
sufficient unto itself. The problem is how to get from here to there.
Louis Gregory was able to persuade the National Assembly that race
amity should be regarded as an essential component of world unity.
His paradigm was as simple as it was profound: World unity must
encompass international unity, religious unity, and inter-racial unity.112
Despite the fact that the Bahá’í national agenda had shifted focus to the
ideal of world unity (effectively marginalizing “race amity”), Locke
was able to further the cause of race unity even within the context of
the world unity initiative. Locke’s strategy was to subsume race relations under the broader rubric of cultural pluralism, which is the secular
equivalent to the Bahá’í ideal of world unity.
Part of the credit for keeping the torch of race amity alight goes to
the National Assembly itself. Holley invited Locke to speak at the World
Unity Conference, on 27 March 1927, in New Haven, Connecticut.113
In a handwritten letter dated 17 March 1927 on National-Assemly letterhead and addressed to Locke, Horace Holley wrote:
Dear Alain:
We are most anxious to have you give your talk on Cultural Reciprocity
harlem renaissance and bahá’í service
133
at the World Unity Conference to be held Sunday, March 27, 3:30 P.M., in
the Hotel Taft, New Haven. Herbert Adams Gibbons of Princeton is the other
speaker, and the program is a brilliant galaxy!
I sent you a night letter last night but the Western Union reported this
A.M. that the message was not delivered as you are out of town. Please wire
me your acceptance collect. We can offer expenses and $25.
Cordially
Horace114
Locke did accept. He must have done so almost immediately. Holley
acknowledged Locke’s acceptance in a letter dated March 20: “Your
wire of acceptance from Philadelphia is most pleasing. We included
your name on the New Haven program, as you see, even before I heard
from you, because we were so anxious to have you speak.”115
The only record of his speech is a one-page manuscript, which
appears to be a compressed version of the speech itself. The style is
denser than usual for Locke, suggestive of a prepared text on which
Locke would extemporaneously elaborate. While there is no way to
know for certain if this was really the text of his speech, there is a
strong likelihood that it was, for there is no other lecture or publication
of Locke’s that corresponds to this title. “Cultural Reciprocity” reads
as follows:
Our practical problem of achieving world unity is not one of welding nationalities and races into some great confederation but one of discovering a spiritual
unity for broader human understanding. The World War multiplied the family
of nations and confronts us the [sic; read with] the problem of how the big
nations can learn to respect the rights of little nations and how domineering
majorities can reconcile themselves with insurgent minorities. We have in this
situation either the seeds of the downfall of the civilization or the roots of an
entirely new world order. The brotherhood of man which is an ideal the ethical
religions have asserted for ages past must be worked out in a real fraternity
of spirit among the various races, nations and classes of our discordant world.
We must somehow find a common denominator for humanity.
Cultural reciprocity which at bottom is a renunciation of our Western
bigotry of civilization must be developed and put into practice. Our understanding with an insurgent East and a sullen Africa, a revolutionary proletariat all depend on a change of spiritual values in a world view in which this
bigotry is renounced. The Black, Yellow and Red perils are all products of our
own bad social conscience, nightmares of imperialistic exploitation, oppression, and arrogance. To abandon the implied insult to our narrow views of
civilization will do more for the future peace of the world than any indemnity
for our past injuries of commercial and political exploitation. This only a few
enlightened minds and souls realize with conviction. They are, however, the
134
alain locke: faith & philosophy
prophets of the new society. Upon the success of their vision rests the future
of Western and especially Anglo-Saxon civilization. In terms of this and
this only can the apparent irreconcilables, the East and the West, the Black
Man, the White Man and the Yellow Man be led to mutual self-respect and
understanding. Without a universal scale of values no universality is possible.
Without a reciprocity of culture no unity for humanity.
In no other text by a Bahá’í, to that date (except for the authoritative writings of Shoghi Effendi and, to a lesser extent, those of ‘Abdu’lBahá and Bahá’u’lláh) can such a forthright critique of the West be
found. Locke’s message, that the consequences of imperialism and
colonialism have come back to haunt and threaten the West, brings the
audience face to face with a real and present danger. Perhaps a Marxist
could have said the same thing. But Locke’s message goes well beyond
critique. After framing the problem, he focuses on the solution: “a universal scale of values.”
As a value theorist, of course, Locke might be expected to discourse on values. Observe how adroitly he connects values with social
issues. Note also how Locke’s perspective on race relations is internationalized. With synthetic power and crystal clarity, Locke has synergized faith and philosophy to generate a message that universalizes the
Bahá’í perspective.
Holley thanked Locke in a follow-up letter dated March 30: “I
regret having missed your talk, which the others enjoyed tremendously.”116 There is a reference further in the letter to “the young
Baha’is of Portland, Oregon.” But it is not clear from the context as
to whether Locke had visited that Bahá’í community or not. Holley
wanted to publish Locke’s speech in a new, Bahá’í-sponsored magazine, World Unity, of which he was the editor-in-chief. In a letter dated
20 April 1927, on World Unity magazine letterhead, Holley wrote: “I
hope that you will find it possible to work up into a magazine article
your splendid talk on cultural reciprocity and send this to me before
July first.”117 Judging from the fact that this solicited article was never
published, it is safe to conclude that Locke never submitted his manuscript. In support of the new publishing venture, Locke lent his name
as contributing editor of World Unity: A Monthly Magazine Interpreting
the Spirit of the New Age (New York), the first issue of which was
slated for October 1927.118
First 1927 Race Amity Convention in Washington, D.C.: A Bahá’í
harlem renaissance and bahá’í service
135
race amity conference in Washington, D.C. was long overdue. There
had been none since 1924 (Philadelphia). In 1927, Washington would
hold two such conventions—one in April and the other in November.
The April convention was the new amity committee’s first scheduled
event. As a member of the committee, Locke would have been part of
the planning process. The first conference was so successful that it was
decided another ought to be held later in the year.
National Inter-Racial Amity Committee Reappointment: For the 19271928 Bahá’í Year, Locke was again named to the National Inter-Racial
Amity Committee. This was his fourth national committee appointment. Members included: Agnes S. Parsons, Chairperson; Coralie F.
Cook, Vice Chairperson; Louis G. Gregory, Executive Secretary; Zia
M. Bagdadi; Alain Locke; Elizabeth G. Hopper; Miss Isabel Rives.119
Louis Gregory himself confirms this list in a personal letter.120 No
mention is made of Miss Hopper in the November 27 issue of Bahá’í
News Letter. According to Morrison, “Possibly she declined the
appointment.”121 In December 1927, the membership consisted of
Agnes Parsons, Louis Gregory, Zia M. Bagdadi, Alain Locke, and
Pauline Hannen, replacing Miss Rives, who was traveling abroad.122
Annual Souvenir: Much of the documentary information we have on
Locke is fragmentary. A case in point is an instance in which Locke was
invited to speak, but information is lacking as to whether he did or did
not. In a letter dated 14 June 1927, on behalf of the West Englewood
Bahá’í Assembly, Roy Wilhelm asked Locke to speak at an upcoming
event less than two weeks away:
Dear Doctor Locke:
I wrote you ten days ago care of Mrs. Haney, expressing the hope that
you might be in New York or vicinity or possibly traveling this way so that
you could give a short address upon the occasion of the Commemoration of
the Annual Souvenir [of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá], June 25th. Very probably this letter
is still traveling around trying to locate you. This morning I have been so
fortunate as to learn from Louis Gregory your former New York address and
I am sending this letter trusting it may reach you.123
After mentioning who the other invited speakers were, Wilhelm
states that “we are particularly anxious to hear . . . Dr. Alain Locke”—
stating his name and title, probably to emphasize how much they
were counting on his presence at this event. Wilhelm closes with this
136
alain locke: faith & philosophy
open invitation: “At any later time you may be in this vicinity I wish
you could give us an evening as we have a number of friends whom
we want to hear your presentation of this Cause.”124 At this point in
his Bahá’í career, his reputation preceded him, and there appears to
have been a perception among Bahá’í organizers that the effort they
expended in trying to get Locke as a speaker was well worth the time
and trouble. The reader should also bear in mind that Locke’s crowded
schedule as a public speaker was largely due to the fact that his speaking engagements were an added source of income for him.
Bahá’í Reception of the The New Negro: How much time and energy
Locke devoted to Bahá’í interests is difficult to assess. This probably
fluctuated greatly, depending on a number of factors. These included
his professional obligations, his many commitments to other organizations and their causes, his changing temperaments with regard to the
Bahá’í Faith itself, and his personal social life. The historian must
always keep these in perspective. Locke was not a full-time worker for
the Bahá’í Faith.
Louis Gregory thought highly of Locke’s leadership role in the
Harlem Renaissance, and doubtless communicated this to other
Bahá’ís. In a typed letter dated 7 September 1927 to Agnes Parsons,
Gregory writes:
The book edited by Prof. Lock[e], “The New Negro”, is one that seems
worthy of every library in the land, almost a revelation to those who have
never considered the subject. Even as England for centuries made little progress in governing Ireland, until at last it began to consider “Irish ideas”, so I
think that the American people on the whole will find much interest and not
a little entertainment in studying the increasing literary output of the intelligentsia of the colored race. An understanding of the various viewpoints of
our American life is much conducive to harmonious citizenship. The bearing
of this upon world peace becomes increasingly clear. The increasing interest
in race relations in all parts of the country is a very hopeful sign.125
This appreciation of the “New Negro” movement was expressed in
an official Bahá’í publication as well. As mentioned above, the release
of The New Negro was announced in the Bahá’í News.126
Race Amity Convention at Green Acre: Notwithstanding the vicissitudes of maintaining a functional committee, a “Convention for Amity
Between the Colored and White Races” took place on 22-23 July 1927
harlem renaissance and bahá’í service
137
at Green Acre in Eliot, Maine. Notwithstanding the fact that he did not
speak at this event, Locke’s name appeared on the program anyway.
A two-sided, three-panel brochure of the event lists the members of
the “National Inter-racial Amity Committee” as: Mrs. A. S. Parsons,
Chairman; Mrs. Coralie F. Cook, Vice Chairman; Louis G. Gregory,
Executive Secretary; Dr. Zia M. Bagdadi; Dr. Alain L. Locke; Miss
Elizabeth G. Hopper; Miss Isabel Ives.127
On the program are two lectures of note, as they both evoke Alain
Locke’s concept of the “New Negro.” The first is an address, “The
New White Man,” presented by Mr. Devere Allen, editor of The World
Tomorrow, and “The New Negro,” by Prof. Leslie Pinckney Hill. This
speaks eloquently of the positive reception Locke’s anthology The New
Negro enjoyed in the Bahá’í community at that time.
Friction Between National and Local Race Amity Committees: The
Green Acre amity convention was seen by some Bahá’ís as a model
to follow. There were certain problems in adopting such an approach,
however. This can be seen in the relationship of local committees to a
national one. One of the roles of the National Race Amity Committee
was to encourage local Bahá’í communities to further the race-relations
work at the grassroots level. Naturally this necessitated the formation
of local amity committees. At times, there was an overlap in spheres of
responsibility. In certain cases, this created some tensions, especially
if there was any perception of an unwarranted, controlling influence
from above.
Louis Gregory discloses one instance of this. In a letter dated 1
October 1927 to Agnes Parsons, Gregory writes:
Miss Hopper’s letter which you enclosed and which is herewith returned gives
me the first direct information that the friends of Washington have organized
a local inter-racial amity committee. In doing this they are entirely within
their rights as the function of the national committee, according to my understanding, is to stimulate activities of this nature all over the country and to
cooperate as far as possible with local committees who need and want help.
As this particular matter was placed in your hands by the Master Himself and
His wish to have this an annual affair given to you, it would seem that your
separation from this work to any extent would be calamitous and likely to
result in confusion and loss.
With this servant [meaning, Gregory himself] the case is entirely different. Miss Hopper intimates a desire on our part to conduct the coming
Washington amity conferences as we did those at Green Acre. Green Acre is
138
alain locke: faith & philosophy
an N. S. A. activity pure and simple and the arrangement for the amity convention here were made by the N. S. A. thru its committee appointed for that
purpose. We happen to be members of that said committee. We did our best.
I was by the committee itself authorized to arrange the program. But now
I fear that there is a little under-current of bad feeling. This I do not feel at
present physically strong enough to endure along with other hard work. Under
the circumstances it seems wise to remain away from Washington until this
special effort is over and this I shall do unless called there by invitation of the
local committee.128
This letter may provide indirect evidence that Locke, whose already
ambiguous relationship with his local Washington Bahá’í community
would become problematic later on, represented part of this largely
artificial problem, for which the wisest solution was to remain aloof.
Practically speaking, local committees function best when granted
autonomy. Since the Washington Bahá’í community had a past history
of alternating enthusiasm and apathy for race-relations efforts, the best
course of action was for the national amity committee to adopt a policy
of noninterference with local amity committees.
Second 1927 Race Amity Convention in Washington, D.C.: In light of
the foregoing discussion, the second Washington amity event in 1927
would be planned by the local Washington committee rather than by
the national one. Although Locke belonged to the Washington, D.C.
Bahá’í community, he had no formal involvement in planning this
second event. Both conventions would take place in the same venue:
the Mt. Pleasant Congregational Church and the Auditorium of the
Playhouse.129 As to Washington’s second convention, held 10-11
November 1927, Locke published report titled “A Bahá’í Inter-Racial
Conference” highlighting the event, the first and last paragraphs of
which read as follows:
Washington, which the penetrating vision of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, in 1912, saw as
the crux of the race problem, and therefore of practical democracy in America,
was for that reason selected as the place for the first convention under Bahá’í
auspices for amity in inter-racial relations. On November 10 and 11 another
of these conventions was held in Washington, this time at the Mt. Pleasant
Congregational Church and the auditorium of The Playhouse, under the now
formally organized Inter-racial Committee of the Bahá’ís of Washington. In
many respects this convention was the most successful of any yet held, above
all in that its discussion of the issues, without losing any of that universality
of treatment which is a cardinal principle with the Bahá’í approach, came to
more practical grips with the problems of race relationships than ever before.
A mere assertion of human unity will never unite us; the root causes of
disunion and antagonism have to be faced and considered and some countermoves and compensatory interests discovered and brought forward. . . .
As with every Amity convention, a feature of importance was the atmosphere of understanding and unity fostered by the meeting of many of the
most representative elements of the white and Negro community, and the
emphasis of understanding in terms of the universal language of music, which
at this convention was generously furnished by Dr. C. Sumner Wormley, Mr.
Claude Robeson, and Miss Virginia Williams.130
In a letter dated 1 October 1927, Gregory made an interesting
comment that provides further insight into Locke’s relationship with
the Washington, D.C. Bahá’í community: “I have not written Dr. Locke
about the Washington meeting. I am sure that he is available, however,
if the Washington friends want him. His heart is deeply attached” [end
of p. 2; rest of letter missing].131 This statement gives pause for thought.
Locke was not on the program. Although one cannot know for sure, he
was probably available, but not invited. The fact that the Washington
community did not seek Locke’s participation to the extent that it might
have did not escape Gregory’s notice, although he was puzzled by it.
Years later, the reverse situation would reflect a deteriorating relationship between Locke and his local Bahá’í community.
Back at Howard (1928): This was the year that saw Locke’s longawaited return to Howard, under its first black president. Locke was
subsequently promoted to chair of the philosophy department. Locke is
credited with having first introduced the study of anthropology, along
with philosophy and aesthetics, into the curriculum at Howard.132 He
also lobbied for an African Studies program at Howard, although one
was not established there until 1954, the year of his death.
With respect to his Bahá’í activities, by any standard, Locke was
quite active and continued to be nationally prominent within the Bahá’í
community, even though such was not the case in his local community.
Locke’s “Impressions of Haifa” was reprinted in the international publication The Bahá’í World for 1926-1928.133 His name appears on the
1928-1929 “Washington, D.C.” Bahá’í membership list, as a member
in good standing and eligible to vote.134 Service on a national committee had its challenges and vicissitudes.
It is a wonder that the National Inter-racial Amity Committee was
able to accomplish what it did. The convening of meetings, which
139
140
alain locke: faith & philosophy
evidently was Louis Gregory’s role in his capacity as executive secretary, was problematic if not impossible at times. In a letter dated 28
December 1927, Louis Gregory proposed a meeting date of either 14
or 16 January 1928 for the “National Committee on Inter-racial Amity.”
Gregory wrote: “Mrs. Hanen [sic] and Dr. Locke are the other local
members to be considered. Presume that Dr. Bagdadi is too far away to
attend.” Of the agenda, Gregory states: “I can think of nothing in the
way of an agenda but the filling of two vacancies on the committee,
which the committee itself has been empowered to do, and the reading
of reports.”135 In a subsequent, handwritten letter dated 23 January
1928, Gregory informed Agnes Parsons: “It was found impossible to
hold a meeting of the National Inter-racial Amity Committee during my
recent stay in Washington as all members save Mrs. Hannen and this
servant were away.”
And yet, on a local level, Gregory reports success: “Enclosed is
program of recent amity effort here [Wilmette, Illinois] which the local
friends think very successful. About 450 people were in attendance
approximately one third of whom were colored. All seemed quite
happy.” He further reports that “Shoghi Effendi appears greatly pleased
with the committee of which you [Agnes Parsons] are chairman.”136
The functioning of the committee that year continued to be hampered by the absences of the majority of its members. In a typed letter
dated 29 July 1928, Gregory reported: “From the members of our committee, I have had no responses save from you, Mrs. Haney, Mrs. Boyle,
and Dr. Bagdadi. Dr. Locke and Mrs. Matthews are probably abroad.
Mesdames Parker and Hannen are silent.”137 Notwithstanding his other
commitments and the logistical difficulties they entailed, Locke did
find time to contribute to the committee work. One indication of his
involvement comes from a handwritten letter dated 15 November 1928,
in which Gregory tells Parsons:
Dear Mrs. Parsons:
Many thanks for your three good letters, all of which reached me. I am
glad of your approval of the draft of the circular letter. Mrs. Matthews and
Dr. Locke have suggested that mention of the youth be made in the final draft.
...
Mrs. Matthews and Dr. Locke are most enthusiastic over their idea that
our committee should meet the N.S.A. in conference at their next session
to consider the matter of spreading the teachings among the youth. I have
conferred with Mesdames Boyle and Haney about the matter and they, too,
approve. Mrs. Matthews wants to come to Washington for this purpose. To
harlem renaissance and bahá’í service
141
my mind, the value of such a conference will lie chiefly in encouraging Mrs.
Matthews and Prof. Locke. Mrs. Matthews has been doing some very effective work among the talented people and leaders of the colored race in New
York and has her entire family interested in this spiritual endeavor. Prof.
Locke seems to be now unreservedly a Baha’i but for some reason which I
don’t understand, seems left out of the local activities. He is not a member of
the local amity committee, is often out of town.138
This is a very telling statement. Why was Locke “left out of the
local activities” and “not a member of the local amity committee”? Was
this the fault of the Washington Spiritual Assembly? Or was it Locke’s
own choice? Or was his unavailability interpreted as disinterest?
Reappointment: For the 1928-1929 Bahá’í year, those chosen to serve
on the National Inter-Racial Amity Committee were: Louis Gregory,
Secretary; Agnes Parsons, Mariam Haney, Louise Boyle, Zia Bagdadi,
Alain Locke, Loulie Matthews, Shelley N. Parker, Pauline Hannen.139
This was Locke’s fifth appointment to a Bahá’í national committee. For
a period of time during this Bahá’í administrative year, the National
Teaching Committee and the National Inter-Racial Amity Committee
were affiliated for budgetary reasons.140
Holley continued to pursue Locke’s written work. In a letter
dated 26 June 1928 to Louise Boyle, he wrote of his plans to publish
a volume on race amity: “Please let me know whether there is any
chance of getting the article from Alain Locke in time to be published
with other articles in a symposium on racial amity. I have some excellent material on hand but his article on Cultural Unity would be a
unique addition and I am extremely reluctant to give up hope.”141 If he
intended Locke’s written lecture on “Cultural Reciprocity,” this shows
Holley’s persistence in trying to obtain this manuscript. Perhaps Holley
had given up on requesting it directly from Locke, as he had done this
several times previously.
Contributions to Race Relations (1929): Little documentation exists
for this year. Locke’s name appears on the “Washington, D.C.” eligible voters list for 1928-1929.142 Some information on Locke may
be gleaned through third-party references to him. In a letter dated 22
February 1929 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to Agnes Parsons,
after first acknowledging Parsons’ race-amity work, he praised Locke’s
contributions as well:
142
alain locke: faith & philosophy
Your constant and valued efforts to serve the Cause, are a source of deep satisfaction to him and he fully believes that in your own special fashion there
lies a great field before you. He gladly welcomes your co-operation with Dr.
Locke in bringing together the higher classes of the coloured people with representatives of the more liberal and sympathetic among your own, and even
if it be not under a [sic] publicly-proclaimed Bahá’í auspices, it is sufficient
that with your presence you will show that it is inspired by the Bahá’í spirit
and teachings.143
Here, the term “liberal” is linked with “sympathetic”—or socially
progressive in promoting positive social interaction between the elites
of both the black and white communities. The early history of the
Washington, D.C. Bahá’í community reveals how divisive these differences of opinion really were. Shoghi Effendi appears to accommodate
Parsons’ own preference (and possibly Locke’s as well) for the indirect
approach, in events that were not under “publicly-proclaimed Bahá’í
auspices.”
The National InterRacial (sic) Amity Committee for the 1929-1930
Bahá’í year included: Louis Gregory, Chairman; Shelley N. Parker,
Secretary; Agnes Parsons; Mariam Haney; Louise D. Boyle; Zia
M. Bagdadi; Alain Locke; Miss Alice Higginbotham; and Loulie A.
Mathews.144 This was Locke’s sixth national committee appointment.
Locke’s Continued Bahá’í Commitment: In a letter dated 23 April
1929 to Agnes Parsons, Locke wishes to reassure her of his continued
commitment as a Bahá’í: “I am constantly having to apologize but it
seems a chronic condition of overwork.” He closes in saying: “Please
rest assured of my continued cooperation and interest, and my deep
hopes for the practical realization in Washington of the principles of
our Cause.145
There may have been an ulterior motive in this, since Locke looked
to Parsons as a prospective patron of African American art: “While I
know your rather definite interests in purely research projects, as well
as realize that this project originally proposed [as] to funds is a very
sizable [one] for individual funding, I am, nevertheless, encouraged by
Professor Sapir’s suggestion in referring the matter to you for your consideration and possible support.”146 Despite Locke’s gifts as a thinker
and writer, this is a very awkward sentence. Soliciting Parsons as a prospective patron of African art might have been equally as awkward.
harlem renaissance and bahá’í service
143
Contributions to Bahá’í Literature (1930): Locke served the Bahá’í
Faith primarily in two capacities: race relations and publications. The
one involved him more as a speaker; the other as a writer. “Impressions
of Haifa” was reprinted in The Bahá’í World for 1928-1930.147 Holley
was planning to publish Locke’s “Cultural Reciprocity,” but never
received the manuscript. In a letter dated 13 February 1930, Holley
exclaims, with patent exasperation: “It has been a continued regret to
me that your article on ‘Cultural Reciprocity’ has never turned up!”148
The leader of the Bahá’í Faith, Shoghi Effendi, recognized Locke’s literary abilities, and called on them by inviting Locke to comment on his
working translation of the Kitáb-i Íqán, Bahá’u’lláh’s most important
doctrinal work.149
Progress Report on Interracial Work, 1929-1930: The annual report
discloses that all committee decisions were reached by consensus:
“No committee action has been taken upon matters referred to this
committee by its chairman that has not had unanimous approval.”150
Green Acre was site of a third annual race amity convention. Perhaps
the greatest accomplishment of the committee this year was its draft
letter to First Lady Mrs. Herbert Hoover, who held a reception for
black Congressman Oscar DePriest, in which the committee “pointed
out that interracial amity is the basis of universal peace.” The annual
report states:151
By instructions from the National Spiritual Assembly, this committee prepared the draft of a letter to Mrs. Herbert Hoover, felicitating her upon her
entertainment in the White House of the wife and daughter of Oscar DePriest,
the colored Congressman and the only representative of the colored race in
that great body, along with the families of other Congressmen, for which she
received censure in some quarters. This letter, which explained the Bahá’í
teachings on race relations, was adopted by the N. S. A. and by its secretary
sent to Mrs. Hoover along with a copy of the Bahá’í World. This letter commended Mrs. Hoover and her distinguished husband on their stand for peace
and humanitarian service. It was pointed out that interracial amity is the basis
of universal peace.152
According to Morrison, in the following Bahá’í administrative year
(1930-31), no independent amity committee was appointed. All amity
activities were subsumed under the National Teaching Committee.
144
alain locke: faith & philosophy
Louis Gregory served as secretary for amity activities.153 So far as can
be determined, this period was something of a hiatus in Locke’s Bahá’írelated race activities. This time, the relative inactivity was through no
fault of his own.
Race Amity Committee (1931): For the 1931-1932 Bahá’í administrative year, Locke was appointed to the National Racial Amity
Committee, whose members included: Loulie Mathews, Chairperson;
Louis Gregory, Secretary; Zia M. Bagdadi; Mabelle L. Davis; Frances
Fales; Sara L. Witt; Alain Locke; Shelley N. Parker; Annie K.
Lewis.154 This was Locke’s seventh and final national Bahá’í committee appointment. Of his acceptance, Locke, in a handwritten letter to
Louis Gregory, writes:
June 6, 1931
Alain Locke
1326 R. St., N.W.
Washington, D. C.
Dear Friend and Brother:
We are just completing a trying year at the University, but with effort,
substantial progress goes on, but there is far too much controversy in the air.
It has grieved and exhausted me.
Your letter about the Interracial committee was welcome and enheartening. I have written Mr. Lunt my acceptance, and hope next year to be called
upon to participate more actively in the Amity conferences and consultations.
I am very sorry that I must again miss the Green Acre convention—as
I go abroad for the summer, on what seems an urgent combination of health
treatment, and business engagements. I wholly agree with your plans and
activities, and think the work is gradually reaching wider and wider circles. I
wish James Weldon Johnson and Mr. Hubert of New York could be persuaded
to come to Green Acre—and while the visit would do Dr. Woodson good—his
temperament is rather acid as you know—and might not keep [help?] the
cause—although he is first and last a truth-seeker—and I would rather have
this element even with some irritation than the deceptive platitudes of some
of our friends, including even Dr. Leslie P. Hill.
Please accept these reactions as constructively meant, and with my keen
regret—accept my prayerful wishes for great confirmation at Green Acre this
summer.
Sincerely yours,
Alain Locke155
From the context of the letter, it seems that Locke was critical of
harlem renaissance and bahá’í service
145
certain Bahá’ís who were involved in the race-relations work. While
Dr. Woodson is apparently spoken of as a Bahá’í here, this has yet
to be confirmed. However, we do know that Dr. Leslie P. Hill was a
Bahá’í.156
Because he was already on the national committee, Locke had
not been appointed to the local amity committee. In a community list
“Showing committee assignments for the year 1931-1932,” Stanwood
Cobb, Coralie Cook, Mariam Haney, and Agnes Parsons were identified as the members of the local “Inter-Racial” committee.157
George Cook’s Obituary: On 25 September 1931, Mariam Haney, on
behalf of the editors of The Baha’i Magazine, asked Locke to write a
memoriam for Bahá’í Howard professor, George William Cook (18551931). This Locke did.158
Haney’s appeal to Locke reveals how his fellow Bahá’ís perceived
him at that time. For instance, she writes: “We know you are very
busy. Life is that way of course. And we would not have it otherwise.
However, it is often said that if one wants anything done, ask the busy
person.” After giving her reasons why Locke was “the logical person
to write this article” and stressing the importance of writing this tribute
to an illustrious Bahá’í, Haney’s grace and tact continues to shine
through: “The article need not be long, and so we feel sure, with your
gifts and graces, you will not be taxed in strength or time.”159
Unity through Diversity: A Bahá’í Principle: Locke’s Bahá’í literary
contributions continued. Locke’s article, “Unity through Diversity:
A Bahá’í Principle”160 was solicited in 1931. On 29 December, Mrs.
Wanden M. La Farge, on behalf of the editorial board, prevailed upon
him to complete and submit his manuscript: “Dear Doctor Locke: No
article for the Bahai World has appeared from you and this is merely
a warning that the next step will be not one but a series of telegrams
collect. With very best regards.”161 This was an important essay, published in 1933. It functioned not only as effective Bahá’í propaganda in
a positive sense, but as a further public testimony of Locke’s continuing
identification with the Bahá’í Faith.
Locke’s Bahá’í Activities (1932): It appears that Locke was not
appointed to the 1932-1933 National Inter-Racial Amity Committee,
146
alain locke: faith & philosophy
whose members included Loulie A. Mathews, chairperson; Louis G.
Gregory, secretary; Mrs. Witt; Zia Bagdadi; Mabelle L. Davis; Coralie
Cook; Mrs. Shelley N. Parker; Dorothy Richardson; and Mrs. Edwin
Horne.162 That Locke was not appointed to the 1932-1933 National
Inter-Racial Amity Committee cannot yet be explained. It did not
prevent Locke from continuing to contribute to the Bahá’í race-relations work, however. If anything, it may have made him more available
as a speaker at a major Bahá’í event in December.
On 27 February 1932, the Bahá’ís hosted an interracial banquet
in honor of the NAACP and the National Urban League. W. E. B.
Du Bois was one of the distinguished African Americans present and
gave a short speech.163 According to a story published in the Chicago
Defender, Walter F. White, secretary of the NAACP, hailed “the Bahá’í
movement” as “one of the great forces of human understanding.”164
But, Locke was not part of this event.
At the end of the year, however, Locke did speak at the Racial
Amity Convention in New York, which took place on 9-10 December
1932. Part of the conference was held in Harlem. The event was
planned by the National Inter-Racial Amity Committee in cooperation
with a local Bahá’í committee, and with the New York chapter of the
National Urban League. Samuel A. Allen, who presided over the first
session, chaired the local “Committee of Arrangements.”165
The first session was devoted to economics. The first speaker was
Ira De A. Reid, director of the research department of the National
Urban League. He was followed by Dr. Genieve Coy of Columbia
University and Elsa Russell, both of whom were Bahá’ís and who presented a Bahá’í “vision of the new economics.”166 Since there really
is no such thing as “Bahá’í economics” as a distinct field or discipline,
we can presume that the talks were general in nature.
With Philip A. Marangella presiding, Locke spoke at the second
session, which “covered many phases of racial amity.” Here, Locke
was once again on the same platform with his long-time friend Louis
Gregory. The other two speakers were Mrs. Wanden M. LaFarge and
Mr. James H. Hubert.167 A musical presentation was held in the auditorium of the Harlem branch of the New York Public Library. Mrs.
Ludmila Bechtold presided over this session. As Gregory reports:
“One of its special charms was African music.”168 This was followed
by a special session devoted to art. “Mr. Saffa Kinney” urged African
America musicians to refine their “wonderful native gifts in music”
harlem renaissance and bahá’í service
147
and to develop a distinctive music “uninfluenced by foreign masters,”
so as to “make a great contribution.” In the literary field, Arthur A.
Schomberg, director of the Schomberg collection “of books about the
Negro,” discoursed on “his fascinating studies.” The final session was
an “interracial social,” which included a dinner banquet.169
In his 1933 report on behalf of the National Bahá’í Committee for
Racial Amity, Gregory was delighted with Locke’s public declaration
of his Bahá’í identity and his open endorsement of its principles:
For a number of years, in fact since the first amity convention in Washington,
Dr. Alain Locke has during the years been a contributor to the work of the
Cause, without formally identifying himself with it. Perhaps the most significant feature of this conference was his strong, eloquent and beautiful
address, in which he took a decided and definite stand within the ranks of
the Cause. This attitude we believe will increasingly with the years influence
people of capacity to investigate the mines of spiritual wealth to be found in
the Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh. It will also make what has long been a grandly
useful life more glorious, serviceable and influential than ever before. It is to
be hoped that the friends both locally and nationally, will largely make use of
the great powers of Dr. Locke both in the teaching and administrative fields
of the Cause. He has made the pilgrimage to Haifa. The Master in a tablet
praised him highly and it is known that the Guardian shares his love for our
able brother.170
Evidently, judging by several factors, this event was a success,
as Gregory reports: “An overwhelming number of the speakers and
workers were Bahá’ís and there was a fine and enthusiastic response
on the part of the most cultured circles of Harlem and other parts of the
city.”171 Locke was key to that success. As a Bahá’í, Locke was not a
self-promoter, although he was a public figure. Gregory understood that
Locke was someone who responded, more or less, “by invitation only.”
Gregory was Locke’s elder spiritual brother. He nurtured Locke and
kept him engaged with the Bahá’í Faith. On this particular occasion,
Locke gave a public and unequivocal testimony of faith. Responsibility
for that signal act is Locke’s. But to Gregory is probably owed the
credit.
Unity Through Diversity (1933): This year saw the publication of
Locke’s book The Negro in America,172 a bibliography that he compiled to advance adult education and interracial understanding. It is
interesting to note that Locke uses the term “reciprocity” in posing
the question as to “whether America is to acknowledge the ‘meltingpot’ conception or the ‘reciprocity’ notion.”173 “Reciprocity” is one of
148
alain locke: faith & philosophy
Locke’s core concepts and a key term for understanding Locke’s social
thought. A counterpart to this term, in Bahá’í parlance, is “unity in
diversity.” Locke made this expression dynamic in the turn of phrase:
“unity through diversity.”
In 1933, the local Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Washington, D.C.
incorporated.174 During this time, Locke transitioned into a more
literary phase of Bahá’í activity. Except for his essay on “Cultural
Reciprocity,” which was never published, there is no known instance
in which Locke declined an invitation to write for the Faith. Given his
overworked and overextended professional and lecture schedule, and
his frequent international travels, whatever Locke was able to write for
Bahá’í publication was highly valuable. A public speaking engagement
might, at best, be summarized in a newspaper story, although there are
several published transcripts of his talks on radio. There is practically
nothing of substance from his first amity speech as session chair, and
there are no transcripts of his other Bahá’í lectures. The only way that
we can study his thoughts on his religion is through his published Bahá’í
work. Locke’s article, “Unity through Diversity: A Bahá’í Principle,” in
The Bahá’í World for 1930-1932 was published this year. Although he
had previously contributed essays and articles for publication, this was
perhaps his most outstanding Bahá’í essay.
Second Bahá’í Pilgrimage (1934): Locke was part of the ebb and flow
of Bahá’í race-relations efforts generally. Agnes Parsons was struck and
killed in a car accident in January 1934, at the age of seventy-three.175
In a way, her death symbolized the end of an era.
Although his name does not appear on the “List of Recognized
Believers of the Bahá’í Community of Washington, D.C., January 14,
1934,”176 Locke shows up in “The record of meeting 4/16/34” written
above the “List of Recognized Believers of the Washington Bahá’í
Community . . . (April 12, 1934).” Locke’s name has no code beside it,
indicating that he neither was present at the meeting nor had he mailed
in his ballot.177 Whatever the immediate reason, this data reinforces
the pattern of a personal distance from his local Bahá’í community.
However, Locke continued to make significant contributions to the
Bahá’í community at the national and international levels.
Locke’s second pilgrimage was quite brief and incomplete, lasting
just one day. For reasons not yet clear, Shoghi Effendi was unavailable
at that time. In determining the date of his second pilgrimage to Haifa,
harlem renaissance and bahá’í service
149
key evidence comes from a letter Locke wrote to Shoghi Effendi on 1
August 1934, who received it on 18 August 1934. From the Research
Department’s summary of it, we are told:
The letter is written on board the ship “Roma,” following Dr. Locke’s brief
visit to Haifa and the Bahá’í Shrines. He spent “a beautiful day” and visited
“all three shrines” in the company of Ruhi Afnan, and as was the case on
his first visit some 10 years ago, he was “deeply inspired, and spiritually
refreshed.”178
Late July 1934 can now be established as the date of Locke’s second
pilgrimage. According to a Research Department memorandum: “With
regard to Dr. Locke’s second visit, as noted above, it was very brief,
lasting one day. While the actual date is not known, one can deduce that
it took place just prior to 1 August 1934, the date of Dr. Locke’s letter
to Shoghi Effendi.”179 Although he compares the effects of this visit
with his first, undoubtedly the first had greater effect. Locke continues
(in paraphrase):
Dr. Locke expresses pleasure at seeing the beauty and care with which Shoghi
Effendi has developed the Bahá’í properties on Mount Carmel and in ‘Akká,
and he comments that the Guardian’s “nurture of the principles in concrete
symbols is a great contribution.” He states that he plans to share his impressions with the friends [the Bahá’ís].180
Evidently, this never happened, or at least there is no written record
of it. He did not, so far as the evidence permits us to say, ever write
or publish a sequel to his extraordinarily well-received “Impressions
of Haifa.” It is quite possible that Locke’s Bahá’í World essay “The
Orientation of Hope” (1936) was written partly as an overflow of his
second pilgrimage experience. Consistent with his first visit, however,
was Locke’s appreciation of Shoghi Effendi’s continued work in creating a garden out of a desert. Locke continues his letter, expressing his
regrets over having missed the opportunity to see Shoghi Effendi:
Dr. Locke laments not having had the opportunity of seeing Shoghi Effendi.
However, the “deciding factor” was “the chance of another visit, even though
a glimpse.” He hopes to return for a lengthier visit “as soon as practically
possible.”181
Such future plans to meet the Guardian never materialized.
Precisely why Shoghi Effendi was not able to meet with Locke at this
150
alain locke: faith & philosophy
time is not known. It raises the question as to the place of this visit in
Locke’s itinerary: Was this more of a spontaneous visit rather than one
planned well in advance? The short duration of the visit may have been
a factor. It seems to have been more on the order of a stopover than
a prime destination. This misadventure still has historic significance,
however. The next part of Locke’s letter clearly indicates what was on
his mind:
He indicates that he would have welcomed the chance to talk to Shoghi
Effendi about some of the difficulties under which he had been working
during the last several years. He mentions the impact on him of the “factionalism of race.” He explains that as a teacher, he has tried to be “a modifying
influence to radical sectionalism and to increasing materialistic trends—and
in this indirect way to serve the Cause and help forward the universal principles,” which he supports without reservation. He foreshadows seeking guidance from the Guardian on this matter in the future.182
In speaking of the “factionalism of race” and of its personal impact
on him, Locke assesses his own contribution to furthering the Bahá’í
cause. The key word here may be “indirect.” Clearly, Locke opted to
promote the Bahá’í principles of racial and ethnic, religious and international unity through what Bahá’ís refer to as “indirect teaching.”
Contrary to what his letter had promised, it appears that Locke never
formally sought the Guardian’s advice on race relations. According to
the summary of it, Locke’s letter ends as follows:
The letter ends with “cordial greetings, gratitude and brotherly affection”
addressed to the Guardian, and Dr. Locke expresses the hope that “the dawn
of Truth [may] come nearer through this terrible dusk of transition and
strife.”183
There is record that Shoghi Effendi wrote in reply to Locke. Written
on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, this letter was dated 25 August 1934. The
date is derived from the notation on the envelope of Locke’s letter.184
This letter has yet to be located. Assuming it was sent while Locke was
still traveling, it is possible that the letter never reached him.
Conclusions: Locke’s Bahá’í legacy is not nearly as well known as
that of Louis Gregory. As a full-time Bahá’í teacher and administrator,
Gregory publicly and fully identified himself with the Bahá’í Faith. As
his Bahá’í mentor, Gregory took Locke under his wing. The two made
harlem renaissance and bahá’í service
151
a great team together in their tour of the Deep South in 1925-1926.
The two served on several race amity committees together. Throughout
Locke’s career, Gregory kept in touch.
Locke was one of few people of capacity to embrace the Bahá’í
Faith during this time. He also had many demands on him from a wide
variety of interests. As a Bahá’í, Locke was more effective outside of
Bahá’í circles than within. Whether consciously or not, Locke transposed Bahá’í principles into both his professional and extracurricular
life, making him particularly successful in what Bahá’ís term, “indirect
teaching.” The full extent of Locke’s contributions to Bahá’í race-relations initiatives may never be known. But the historian is justified in
reaching this conclusion: Locke lent his prestige, wisdom, and eloquence in the service of Bahá’í race endeavors. In so doing, he made
a qualitative difference. Locke was unique—a fact that Bahá’í leaders
appreciated.
Notes
1. Lewis, When Harlem Was in Vogue, p. xxviii.
2. Du Bois to Locke, 9 October 1924, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-26,
Folder 8 (Du Bois, W. E. B. 1921-1929).
3. Bahadur to Locke, 27 February 1924, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 16412, Folder 2 (Bahadur, Azizullah).
4. Morrison, To Move the World, p. 146; Gregory, “Inter-Racial Amity,” p. 283;
idem, “Racial Amity in America,” p. 657; Locke to Parsons, 21 October 1922,
Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA.
5. Morrison, To Move the World, p. 147.
6. See Alain Locke, “Major Prophet of Democracy.” Review of Race and
Democratic Society by Franz Boas, Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 15, no. 2
(Spring 1946) pp. 191-92. See also Mark Helbling, “Feeling Universality and
Thinking Particularistically: Alain Locke, Franz Boas, Melville Herkskovits, and
the Harlem Renaissance,” Prospects, Vol. 19 (1994) pp. 289-314.
7. Cited by Peggy Pascoe, “Miscegenation Law, Court Cases, and Ideologies of
‘Race’ in Twentieth-Century America,” Journal of American History, Vol. 83, no.
1 (June 1996) p. 53, n. 23.
8. Menand, The Metaphysical Club, pp. 396-97.
9. Morrison, To Move the World, p. 147.
10. Ibid.
11. National Bahá’í Assembly (sic) “To the Assemblies of the United States and
Canada, 19 May 1924, Bahá’í Archives of Washington, D.C. Courtesy of Ms.
Anita Chapman; Morrison, To Move the World, p. 147.
12. Locke to Parsons, 22 May 1924, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA. Courtesy of
152
alain locke: faith & philosophy
Roger Dahl, Archivist, enclosure sent 20 February 2001.
13. Morrison, “To Move the World: Promoting Racial Amity, 1921-1927,” p. 22.
14. Program, Bahá’í Archives of Washington, D.C. Courtesy of Ms. Anita
Chapman.
15. Morrison, To Move the World, pp. 147-49.
16. Ibid., p. 149; Gregory, “Racial Amity in America,” p. 658.
17. Bahá’í Archives of Washington, D.C. Courtesy of Ms. Anita Chapman.
18. Morrison, To Move the World, p. 149.
19. Ibid.
20. Jeffrey Stewart, “Introduction,” in Locke, Race Contacts and Interracial
Relations, p. xlii. For a full discussion of this controversy, see Juan Williams and
Dwayne Ashley, I’ll Find a Way or Make One: A Tribute to Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (New York: Amistad, 2004) pp. 119-30.
21. Locke to Franz Boas (handwritten letter on The Civic Club stationery), 3
December 1925, Boas Papers, American Philosophical Society. My thanks to
Robert S. Cox, Keeper of Manuscripts.
22. Locke to Boas, 14 December 1925, Boas Papers, American Philosophical
Society.
23. Locke to Du Bois, 1925, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-26, Folder 8
(Du Bois, W. E. B. 1921-1929).
24. Logan, Howard University:The First Hundred Years 1867-1967, pp. 235-36.
25. Locke to Parsons, 21 October 1922, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA. Courtesy of
Roger Dahl, Archivist, enclosure sent 20 February 2001.
26. Romare Bearden and Harry Henderson, A History of African-American Artists
From 1792 to the Present (New York: Pantheon Books, 1993) p. 246.
27. “Biographical Memo: Alain (LeRoy) Locke,” Alain Locke Papers, MSRC,
Box 164-1, Folder 2 (Autobiographical statements).
28. Locke, The New Negro, pp. 6 and 47, quoted in Astrid Franke, “Struggling
with Stereotypes: The Problems of Representing a Collective Identity,” The
Critical Pragmatism of Alain Locke: A Reader on Value Theory, Aesthetics,
Community, Culture, Race, and Education, ed. by Leonard Harris (Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield, 1999) pp. 23 and 26.
29. Richard J. Shusterman, “Pragmatist Aesthetics: Roots and Radicalism,” in The
Critical Pragmatism of Alain Locke, pp. 102 and 109, n. 8.
30. Franke, “Struggling with Stereotypes,” p. 22.
31. Locke, The New Negro, pp. 11, 47, 99, quoted in Shusterman, “Pragmatist
Aesthetics,” p. 105.
32. Fraser, “Another Pragmatism,” pp. 15-17.
33. Alain Locke, The New Negro, pp. 52-3 and 9, quoted in Shusterman,
“Pragmatist Aesthetics,” pp. 102 and 104.
34. Molesworth, “Alain Locke and Walt Whitman,” p. 185.
35. Harris, Philosophy of Alain Locke, p. 6. Locke expressed his enthusiastic support for Du Bois’ concept in an essay, “The Talented Tenth,” Howard
University Record, Vol. 12, no. 7 (December 1918) pp. 15-18, but differed sharply
with Du Bois over the latter’s insistence that art be propaganda, in a later essay,
“Art or Propaganda?” Harlem, Vol. 1 (November 1928) pp. 12-13. See discussion in Richard Keaveny, “Aesthetics and the Isuue of Identity,” in The Critical
Pragmatism of Alain Locke, pp. 127-40.
harlem renaissance and bahá’í service
153
36. Lewis, When Harlem Was in Vogue, p. 92.
37. Ibid., p. xxiv.
38. Ibid., p. xxviii.
39 Ibid., p. 117.
40. Valerie Boyd, Wrapped in Rainbows: The Life of Zora Neale Thurston (New
York: Scribner, 2003) p. 89.
41. Lewis, When Harlem Was in Vogue, pp. 116 and xxi.
42. Jeffery Stewart, qtd. by Sheila Folliott, “The Renaissance.” Online: http://
chnm.gmu.edu/courses/westernciv/video/ffolliott1.html.
43. Lewis, When Harlem Was in Vogue, p. 90.
44. Marcia A. Smith, Black America, A Photographic Journey: Past to Present
(San Diego: Thunder Bay Press, 2002) p. 165
45. Lewis, When Harlem Was in Vogue, p. 93.
46. Qtd. in Mark Helbling, “Alain Locke: Ambivalence and Hope,” Phylon, Vol.
40, no. 3 (1979) p. 291, citing Opportunity, Vol. 2 (May 1924) p. 143.
47. Lewis, When Harlem Was in Vogue, pp. 93-4.
48. Ibid., pp. 94-5.
49. Jeffery Stewart, qtd. by Sheila Folliott, “The Renaissance.” Online: http://
chnm.gmu.edu/courses/westernciv/video/ffolliott1.html.
50. Helbling, “Alain Locke: Ambivalence and Hope,” p. 299.
51. Christopher Buck, “Alain Locke,” American Writers: A Collection of Literary
Biographies, Supplement XIV, edited by Jay Parini (Farmington Hills, MI:
Scribers Reference/The Gale Group, 2004) pp. 195-219.
52. Jeffery Stewart, qtd. by Sheila Folliott, “The Renaissance.” Online: http://
chnm.gmu.edu/courses/westernciv/video/ffolliott1.html.
53. Ibid.
54. Jeffery Stewart, quoted in PBS Online News Hour Online Forum, 20 February
1998, “Harlem Renaissance: An exhibit in San Francisco explores the artistic
and cultural legacies of the 1920s and 30s.” Online: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/
forum/february98/harlem3.html.
55. Jeffery Stewart, qtd. by Sheila Folliott, “The Renaissance.”
56. Molesworth, “Alain Locke and Walt Whitman,” p. 176.
57. Johnny Washington, Alain Locke and Philosophy: A Quest for Cultural
Pluralism (New York: Greenwood Press, 1986) p. xxv.
58. Posnock, Color and Culture, p. 198.
59. Locke appeared on the “Official List of Believers of Washington, D.C. As
passed by the Spiritual Assembly. September 1925.” NBA. Courtesy of Roger
Dahl, Archivist.
60. “The Seventeenth Annual Convention and Baha’i Congress,” Baha’i News
Letter, No. 6 (1925) p. 2.
61. Ibid., p. 3.
62. Morrison, To Move the World, 155.
63. Ibid.
64. Ibid., p. 156.
65. Ibid.
66. Holley to Parsons, 9 August 1925, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA, qtd. in
Morrison, To Move the World, p. 169.
67. Ibid.
154
alain locke: faith & philosophy
68. Parsons to Holley, 13 August 1925, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA, qtd. in
Morrison, To Move the World, pp. 169-70.
69. Holley to Parsons, 19 August 1925, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA, qtd. in
Morrison, To Move the World, p. 170.
70. Parsons to Holley, 21 August 1925, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA, qtd. in
Morrison, To Move the World, pp. 170-71. I am skeptical of Parsons’ statement.
71. “News of the Cause,” Baha’i News Letter, No. 10 (February 1926) p. 6.
72. Gregory to Parsons, 24 October 1925, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA. Courtesy
of Roger M. Dahl, Archivist.
74. Southern Regional Teaching Committee (Louise D. Boyle, Agnes Parsons,
Louis Gregory), “Report of the Southern Regional Teaching Committee” (15 April
1926) p. 74. Courtesy of Gayle Morrison, e-mail communication, 17 October
2002.
75. Morrison, To Move the World, p. 151.
76. “News of the Cause,” Baha’i News Letter, No. 10 (February 1926) p. 6.
76. Gregory to Parsons, 13 February 1926, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA. Courtesy
of Roger M. Dahl, Archivist.
77. Holley to Locke, 28 January 1926, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-36,
Folder 47 (Holley, Horace).
78. Holley to Locke, 17 August 1926, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-36,
Folder 47 (Holley, Horace).
79. “News of the Cause,” Baha’i News Letter, No. 10 (February 1926) p. 6. Cf.
Morrison, To Move the World, p. 151, who states that this tour occurred in 1925.
80. “News of the Cause,” Baha’i News Letter, No. 10 (February 1926) pp. 6-7.
81. Office of the Secretary Records, National Bahá’í Convention Files, Box 81.
Courtesy Gayle Morrison, e-mail communication, 11 October 2002.
82. Southern Regional Teaching Committee (Louise D. Boyle, Agnes Parsons,
Louis Gregory), “Report of the Southern Regional Teaching Committee” (15 April
1926) pp. 73-74.
83. Southern Regional Teaching Committee (Louise D. Boyle, Agnes Parsons,
Louis Gregory), “Report of the Southern Regional Teaching Committee” (15 April
1926) pp. 73-74.
84. Ibid., p. 74.
85. Morrison, To Move the World, pp. 320-21.
86. Qtd. in ibid., pp. 164-65 and 345, n. 1, citing National Spiritual Assembly
of the Bahá’ís of the United States (Horace Holley, secy.) to Parsons et al., 13
November 1926, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA.
87. Alain Locke and Montgomery Davis, eds. (1927). Plays of Negro Life: A
Source-Book of Native American Drama. New York and Evanston: Harper and
Row, 1927. “Decorations and Illustrations by Aaron Douglas.”
88. Du Bois to Moorland, 5 May 1927, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-26,
Folder 8 (Du Bois, W. E. B. 1921-1929).
89. Harris, Philosophy of Alain Locke, pp. 296-97, who gives the year 1928 rather
than 1927.
90. Louis Gregory to Holley [National Spiritual Assembly], 28 December 1926,
Interracial Committee Correspondence, Office of the Secretary, National Spiritual
Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada Records, NBA, qtd. in
Morrison, To Move the World, pp. 165 and 345, n. 2.
harlem renaissance and bahá’í service
155
91. Special Committee on Racial Amity to National Spiritual Assembly, 8 January
1927, Interracial Committee Corespondence, NBA. Qtd. in Morrison, To Move the
World, p. 165.
92. “National Committee on Race Amity Appointed,” Baha’i News Letter, No. 16
(March 1927): 5; “Committees of the National Spiritual Assembly 1927-1928,”
Baha’i News Letter, No. 19 (August 1927) p. 4. Morrison, To Move the World, p.
166 and 346, n. 4. Morrison to author, e-mail dated 19 June 2002.
93. Gregory to Parsons, 10 July 1927, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA. Courtesy of
Roger M. Dahl, Archivist.
94. Morrison, To Move the World, pp. 159-62.
95. Louis Gregory to Holley [National Spiritual Assembly], 28 December 1926,
qtd. in Morrison, To Move the World, p. 165.
96. Morrison, To Move the World, pp. 167-68.
97. Morrison, To Move the World, pp. 176-77.
98. Ibid., p. 176.
99. Parsons to Holley, 2 February 1927, Boyle to Holley, 1 February1927, quoted
in ibid., pp. 168-69.
100. Qtd. in ibid., p. 168.
101. National Committee on Inter-Racial Unity, Gregory, secy., to National
Spiritual Assembly and all Local Spiritual Assemblies of the United States and
Canada, 23 February 1927, Inter-Racial Committee Correspondence, NBA.
Excerpts published in “Inter-Racial Amity Conferences,” Baha’i News Letter, no.
22 (March 1928) qtd. in ibid., p. 172.
102. Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Oneness of Mankind: Teachings
Compiled from the Utterances of Bahá’u’’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, comp. Mariam
Haney and Louis G. Gregory (New York: Bahá’í Publishing Committee, n.d.).
Cited by Morrison, To Move the World, pp. 173 and 346-47, n. 18.
103. National Committee on Inter-Racial Unity, Gregory, secy., to National
Spiritual Assembly and all Local Spiritual Assemblies of the United States and
Canada, 23 February 1927, Inter-Racial Committee Correspondence, NBA, p. 2.
104. Ibid..
105. Ibid.
106. Ibid..
107. Ibid..
108. Ibid..
109. Ibid., p. 3.
110. Ibid.
111. Shoghi Effendi to the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States and
Canada, 12 April 1927. Originally published in “Letters from Shoghi Effendi,”
Baha’i News Letter, no. 18 (June 1927) pp. 7-8. Reprinted in Shoghi Effendi,
Bahá’í Administration: Selected Messages 1922-1932, 7th rev. ed. (Wilmette, Ill.:
Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1974) p. 129, qtd. by Morrison, To Move the World, pp.
173 and 347, n. 20.
112. Morrison, To Move the World, p. 165.
113. Holley to Locke, 17 March 1927; Holley to Locke, 20 March 1927; Holley
to Locke, 30 March 1927, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-36, Folder 47
(Holley, Horace); and Box 164-112, Folder 21 (“Cultural Reciprocity”).
156
alain locke: faith & philosophy
114. Holley to Locke, 17 March 1927, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box
164-36, Folder 47 (Holley, Horace); and Box 164-112, Folder 21 (“Cultural
Reciprocity”).
115. Holley to Locke, 20 March 1927, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-36,
Folder 47 (Holley, Horace).
116. Holley to Locke, 30 March 1927, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-36,
Folder 47 (Holley, Horace).
117. Holley to Locke, 20 April 1927, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-36,
Folder 47 (Holley, Horace).
118. Holley to Locke, 20 April 1927; Holley to Locke, 16 June 1927; Holley to
Locke, 13 February 1930, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-36, Folder 47
(Holley, Horace).
119. “Committees of the National Spiritual Assembly 1927-1928,” Baha’i News
Letter, No. 19 (August 1927) p. 4; Bahá’í Archives of Washington, D.C. Courtesy
of Ms. Anita Chapman.
120. Gregory to Parsons, 10 July 1927, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA. Courtesy of
Roger M. Dahl, Archivist.
121. Morrison to author, e-mail dated 19 June 2002.
122. Morrison, To Move the World, p. 182.
123. Wilhelm to Locke, 14 June 1927, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-93,
Folder 9 (Wilhelm, Roy C.).
124. Ibid.
125. Gregory to Parsons, 7 Sept. 1927, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA. Courtesy of
Roger M. Dahl, Archivist.
126. “News of the Cause,” Baha’i News Letter, No. 10 (February 1926) p. 6.
127. Program, Bahá’í Archives of Washington, D.C. Courtesy of Ms. Anita
Chapman.
128. Gregory to Parsons, 1 October 1927, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA. Courtesy
of Roger M. Dahl, Archivist.
129. Morrison, To Move the World, p. 181.
130. Alain Locke, “A Bahá’í Inter-Racial Conference,” The Bahá’í Magazine
(Star of the West) Vol. 18, no. 10 (January 1928) pp. 315-16.
131. Gregory to Parsons, 1 October 1927, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA. Courtesy
of Roger M. Dahl, Archivist.
132. Harvey, “The Philosophical Anthropology of Alain Locke,” p. 21.
133. Alaine (sic) Locke, “Impressions of Haifa,” in The Bahá’í World: A Biennial
International Record, Volume II, April 1926-April 1928, comp. National Spiritual
Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada (New York: Bahá’í
Publishing Committee, 1928; reprint, Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1980) pp.
125, 127. Original manuscript in Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-115, Folder
29 (“Impressions of Haifa” [typescript]).
134. “Washington, D.C.” for 1928-1929. NBA. Courtesy of Roger Dahl,
Archivist.
135. Gregory to Parsons, 28 December 1927, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA.
Courtesy of Roger M. Dahl, Archivist.
136. Gregory to Parsons, 23 January 1928, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA. Courtesy
of Roger M. Dahl, Archivist.
137. Gregory to Parsons, 29 July 1928, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA. Courtesy of
harlem renaissance and bahá’í service
157
Roger M. Dahl, Archivist.
138. Gregory to Parsons, 15 November 1928, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA.
Courtesy of Roger M. Dahl.
139. Gregory to Parsons, 29 July 1928, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA. Courtesy of
Roger M. Dahl, Archivist.
140. “Committees of the National Spiritual Assembly 1929-1930,” Baha’i News
Letter, No. 32 (May 1929) p. 4. See also “Interracial Amity Committee, “Baha’i
News Letter No. 40 (April 1930) p. 10-12, and Morrison, To Move the World, p.
186.
141. Holley to Locke, 26 June 1928, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-36,
Folder 47 (Holley, Horace).
142. “Washington, D.C.” for 1928-1929. NBA. Courtesy of Roger Dahl,
Archivist.
143. From a letter dated 22 February 1929 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi
to Mrs. Parsons, “References to Dr. Alain Locke in Letters Written on Behalf of
Shoghi Effendi,” Attachment, The Universal House of Justice to Buck, 16 July
2001.
144. “Committees of the National Spiritual Assembly 1929-1930,” Baha’i News
Letter, No. 32 (May 1929) p. 4. Members: Louis Gregory (Chairman), Shelley
Parker (Secretary), Agnes Parsons, Louise Boyle, Mariam Haney, Dr. Zia Bagdadi,
Dr. Alain Locke, Loulie Mathews, Miss Alice Higginbotham.
145. Locke to Parsons, 23 April 1929, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA.
146. Locke to Parsons, 30 December 1929, Agnes Parsons Papers, NBA.
147. Alain Locke, “Impressions of Haifa,” pp. 280, 282.
148. Holley to Locke, 13 February 1930, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 16436, Folder 47 (Holley, Horace).
149. Ruhi Afnan (on behalf of Shoghi Effendi) to Locke, 15 February 1930;
Afnan (on behalf of Shoghi Effendi) to Locke, 5 July 1930; Shoghi Effendi to
Locke, 5 July 1930, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-10, Folder 2 (Afnan,
Ruhi).
150. Louis Gregory, “Interracial Amity Committee” (1929-1930 Annual Report),
Baha’i News Letter, No. 40 (April 1930) pp. 10-11.
151. Gregory, “Interracial Amity Committee,” 12.
152. Ibid.
152. Morrison to author, e-mail dated 19 June 2002.
154. “National Bahá’í Committees: 1931-1932,” Baha’i News Letter, No. 53 (July
1931) p. 2; Louis Gregory, “The Annual Convention,” Bahá’í News, no. 52 (May
1931) p. 3; Locke to Gregory, 6 June 1931, Louis Gregory Papers, NBA. Courtesy
of Roger M. Dahl, Archivist; Morrison, To Move the World, p. 349, n. 29.
155. Locke to Gregory, 6 June 1931, Louis Gregory Papers, NBA. Courtesy of
Roger M. Dahl, Archivist.
156. This raises the issue of the Bahá’í proscription against saying anything
negative about another person (“backbiting”) and the need to preserve full and
frank consultation, with unimpeded candor. Bahá’ís are forbidden to backbite,
as this poisons human relationships. However, it would not be backbiting, in the
context of committee business, to express opinions as to whether someone should
or should not be invited to an event, and why. That is essential information for the
committee to consider in making its decision. The honesty and forthrightness of
Locke’s criticism of “the deceptive platitudes of some of our friends, including
158
alain locke: faith & philosophy
even Dr. Leslie P. Hill” suggest that the latter’s expressions of continued commitment as a Bahá’í were equally genuine. Positively, this letter reveals the way
in which Bahá’í committee work at a national level operated. It was conducted
primarily through correspondence, with occasional telephone calls and meetings.
The decision-making process involved Bahá’í principles of consultation, with the
goal of achieving consensus in every decision.
157. Bahá’í Archives of Washington, D.C. Courtesy of Ms. Anita Chapman.
158. Alain L. Locke, “Educator and Publicist,” Star of the West, Vol. 22, no. 8
(November 1931) pp. 254-22. (Obituary of George William Cook, 1855-1931).
159. Haney to Locke, 25 September 1931, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 16433, Folder 49 (“Haney, Mariam”).
160. Alain Locke, “Unity through Diversity: A Bahá’í Principle,” in The Bahá’í
World: A Biennial International Record, Volume IV, April 1930-April 1932, comp.
National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada (New
York: Bahá’í Publishing Committee, 1933; reprint, Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing
Trust, 1980) pp. 372-74. Reprint in Leonard Harris, ed., The Philosophy of Alain
Locke (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989) pp. 133-38.
161. Mrs. Oliver La Farge to Locke, 29 December 1931, Alain Locke Papers,
MSRC, Box 164-43, Folder 50 (La Farge, Oliver).
162. “Committee on Inter-Racial Amity,” Bahá’í News, No. 64 (July 1932) p. 2.
163. Morrison, To Move the World, p. 192. See also “Annual Reports of the
National Committees of the National Spiritual Assemblies of the United States and
Canada 1931-1932,” Bahá’í News.
164. Morrison, “To Move the World: Promoting Racial Amity, 1921-1927,” p.
18 and n. 39, citing Bessey Bearden, “New York Society,” Chicago Defender, 5
March 1932, part 2, p. 1, col. 1.
165. Gregory, “Inter-Racial Amity Activities,” Bahá’í News, No. 72 (April 1933)
p. 6.
166. Ibid.
167. Ibid. See also Morrison, To Move the World, 194, citing “Committee Reports:
Committee on Inter-Racial Amity,” Bahá’í News, No. 74 (May 1933) p. 13.
168. Gregory, “Inter-Racial Amity Activities,” Bahá’í News, No. 72 (April 1933)
p. 6.
169. Ibid.
170. Ibid. Emphasis added.
171. Ibid.
172. Alain Locke, The Negro in America (Chicago: American Library Association,
1933).
173. Ibid., p. 48.
174. Louis Gregory, “A Brief History of the Baha’i Religion in Washington, D.C.,”
7. Manuscript dated 28 October 1938. “Submitted by the Spiritual Assembly of the
Baha’is of Washington, D.C. to the Historical Religious Survey Division of the
Works Progress Administration[,] United States Government.” Courtesy of Dr.
Gayle Morrison, U.S. Bahá’í National Center.
175. Morrison, To Move the World, p. 198.
176. “List of Recognized Believers of the Bahá’í Community of Washington,
D.C., January 14, 1934.” NBA. Courtesy of Roger Dahl, Archivist.
177. Bahá’í Archives of Washington, D.C. Courtesy of Ms. Anita Chapman.
harlem renaissance and bahá’í service
159
178. Research Department, Bahá’í World Center, Memorandum to The Universal
House of Justice, 26 December 2001.
179. Ibid.
180. Ibid.
181. Ibid.
182 Ibid.
183. Ibid. It was Shoghi Effendi’s practice to write the receipt date on the back of
each envelope, and also the date of his reply.
PHI BETA KAPPA INSTALLATION, HOWARD UNIVERSITY, 1953
Alain Locke (center right) and Ralph J. Bunche (center) participate in the
installation ceremony of charter members of Phi Beta Kappa at Howard University.
Courtesy of the Moorland-Spingarn Research Center, Howard University
Chapter Eight
Estrangement and Rededication
Over the years, Locke had periods of active involvement in the Bahá’í
community punctuated by spans of inactivity. Although his levels of
Bahá’í-related activity fluctuated over time, the nature of that activity usually did not involve close, personal association with the Bahá’í
community. Locke’s major contributions were in two spheres: (1) race
amity work—accomplished as much through correspondence as by
meetings; and (2) literary contributions—also done at long distance.
There were occasions, of course, when Locke made appearances as a
speaker at Bahá’í public events, as well as meetings for Bahá’ís only.
Locke’s presence, far beyond the interracial solidarity it represented,
lent prestige and elegance to such occasions.
Locke maintained a wall of separation between his religious life
and his professional life. Had Locke crossed over into the academic
world with the reputation of being an avowed Bahá’í, would this have
compromised his national standing as a “race man”? Would it have
jeopardized his professional career? Or perhaps Locke was reluctant to
identify himself as a Bahá’í for other reasons.
One disappointing development in the Bahá’í community may
have been the appointment of a predominantly white amity committee
for 1933-1934—an appointment that excluded Locke himself.1 It was
around this time that Bahá’í race amity initiatives went into decline.2
The last race amity committee was appointed in 1935-1936. In July
1936, the committee reported: “The National Assembly has appointed
161
162
alain locke: faith & philosophy
no race amity committee this year. Its view is that race unity activities
have sometimes resulted in emphasizing race differences rather than
their unity and reconciliation within the Cause.”3
With the demise of the race amity committees, it would seem that
Locke’s special services were no longer needed. In a letter dated 29
February 1936 to Charlotte Osgood Mason, Locke speaks cynically of
all lectures and committee work: “I am not as keen as I used to be about
this sort of thing—committees and lectures on America’s pet delusions—I may come to life for a paragraph or two—but on the whole,
what comes of it!”4
From various letters, Locke typically cites lack of time and
energy—due to professional commitments and to health problems—as
the reasons for his inactivity. True, his health was not robust. Therefore
these were legitimate reasons and not simply excuses. However, a
growing cynicism over just how effective Bahá’í race-amity efforts
really were seems to have jaded his original optimism. To complicate
matters further, Locke reacted to what he saw as stagnation in these
efforts due to the stultifying influence of dominant Bahá’í personalities.
His service on national Bahá’í race amity committees having come to
an end, Locke’s services were not as greatly in demand as they were
before. Throughout the rest of his Bahá’í career, Locke’s contributions
would continue, but not without some difficulties in his relationship
to the Bahá’í community. The polarities of alternating cynicism and
love for the Faith he embraced in 1918 can perhaps best be considered
together.
Ripening into a Mature Philosopher (1935): While his formal training in philosophy was followed by a long and distinguished teaching
career as an academic, with numerous publications to his credit, Locke
did not publish a single article on philosophy until he was fifty years
old—seventeen years after he had become a Bahá’í.5 This significant
fact accords with Locke’s psychograph in which he disclaims having
ever been “a professional philosopher.”6 Notwithstanding, his work
during this later period reflects his mature thinking as both a professor
of philosophy as well as a philosopher by training. Locke’s first formal
philosophical essay, “Values and Imperatives,” appeared in 1935. This
marked the year that saw his “reentry into the doing of philosophy
directly”7 and thus back into the world of grand theory.
In a retrospective look at his career in Howard University, Locke
estrangement and rededication
163
wrote that his “main objectives” had been “to use philosophy as an
agent for stimulating critical mindedness in Negro youth, to help transform segregated educational missions into centers of cultural and social
leadership, and to organize an advance guard of creative talent for cultural inspiration and prestige.” Moreover, he wanted to link “the discussion of colonial problems with the American race situation, toward the
internationalization of American Negro thought and action.”8 Indeed,
as Michael Winston observes: “With the dramatic rise of racial consciousness in the former European colonies, Locke’s influence became
internationalized.”9
A tumultuous year in American history, 1935 was the year of the
Harlem race riots. Despite how heavily this must have weighed on
Locke’s mind, “his interest in writing philosophy revived,” according to Harris.10 Locke had already contributed much to the Bahá’í
race-relations work. It was now time for him to focus more on his
professional development as a philosopher. As one instance of this new
direction, Locke sponsored a conference on “Problems, Programs and
Philosophies of Minority Groups” at Howard University, to which he
invited several leftist scholars—most notably W. E. B. Du Bois.11 In his
invitation, dated 5 March 1935, Locke, after stating that no honorarium
would be available for the proposed speaking engagement scheduled
for April 5, asked Du Bois to accept the invitation notwithstanding:
“However, we are presuming to ask your participation in the discussion
of one of the most important topics ‘Minority Tactics as illustrated by
Negro Experience’. “12 Du Bois agreed to speak on April 6.13
Locke’s formal philosophical essay, “Values and Imperatives,”
marked Locke’s debut as a serious scholar within the field of philosophy.14 It was a brilliant piece of work. One might see this essay as his
secularization of his Bahá’í universalism. Although his “Values and
Imperatives” essay was based on his dissertation, which he wrote prior
to becoming a Bahá’í, Locke’s philosophy certainly intersected, and
later cross-fertilized with Bahá’í principles. Even if one were to argue
that these existed in two separate spheres that were tangential at best, it
is clear that Locke’s own grounding in values theory was not incompatible with his Bahá’í worldview. Rather, the former may have prepared
him for the latter.
Membership and Community Records: One would have expected that,
in the year following his second pilgrimage, Locke would somehow
164
alain locke: faith & philosophy
have been energized and his efforts to promote ideal race relations
redoubled. Quite the contrary. This is the year in which Locke placed
some limits on his Bahá’í commitments.
A voting list for the election of delegates that took place on 14
March 1935, in Washington, D.C. indicates that Locke was absent and
did not send in an absentee ballot. In other words, he did not vote, nor
did others vote for him. Yet, in another voting list, Locke received a
total of eleven votes.15 This tally may have been for the voting that took
place on 21 April 1935, in which Locke is marked as having mailed his
ballot to the temporary Recording Secretary.16 At long last, the local
community seems to have gained a greater appreciation for Locke. But
he did not reciprocate.
Bahá’í Historical Record Card: In 1935, the National Spiritual
Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States had decided to conduct a
census of the American Bahá’í community. The information was to be
collected at the grassroots level. Consequently, the local Assembly of
Washington, D.C. administered the census for its area. As is typical for
a census generally, information was generated through the distribution
of questionnaires. These particular questionnaires were called “Bahá’í
Historical Record” cards, which were roughly half the size of a regular
sheet of paper.17
Locke had been sent one of these cards to complete, but evidently
had taken some time to do so. In a note to Locke written on a Bahá’í
announcement, Joseph Harley III wrote: “Your Bahá’í record cards
have not been received—Bring them Monday, please.”18 Out of a total
of 1,813 respondents, ninety-nine—thirty-seven men and sixty-two
women—had identified themselves in some way as being black.19
There were seven blacks respondents from the Washington, D.C.
Bahá’í community.20 This was a small number. It certainly did not
reflect the enormity of effort that the champions of racial harmony like
Locke had invested in bridging the racial divide.
While he did finally return the questionnaire, Locke did not fill
out the card completely. But he did identify the date of his conversion as 1918. Not only did this card provide a historical record of the
date of Locke’s conversion, but it also indicates that Locke continued
to identify himself as a Bahá’í in 1935. It permits the historian to say
that Locke maintained his Bahá’í identity continuously for seventeen
years, and that this was his primary, if not only, religious affiliation.
estrangement and rededication
165
Considering the fact that Locke belonged to quite an array of community organizations, this would hardly be worth noting. But the Bahá’í
Faith does not belong within the orbit of civic organizations. Religion
is an intensely personal matter, and dual or multiple religious identities, while typical of other cultures, are not normal in the West. Rather,
religious identity is usually closed—and exclusively so.
Letter to National Spiritual Assembly: His Bahá’í self-identity notwithstanding, Locke had personal reasons for not being fully active
within the Washington Bahá’í community at this time. In the list of
eligible members for the election (presumably of the local Spiritual
Assembly) that took place on 21 April 1935 (using the 80-member 29
January 1935 list), Locke’s name has the code “m” beside it, meaning
“ballot mailed to Temp. Rc. Sec.”21 Although he had duly mailed in his
absentee ballot, Locke had already contemplated writing the National
Spiritual Assembly to alert it to what he perceived as the main reason
behind the stagnation of the race amity work. In a letter dated 18 April
1935 to Horace Holley, Locke wrote:
Howard University
Washington, D. C.
April 18, 1935
Mr. Horace Holley
New York City
Dear Horace,
Needless to say, I am both looking forward to seeing you next Saturday,
and to having a Bahai note injected into our rather materialistic-minded conference. It has been going well so far as interest and attendance are concerned,
but the heavy hits have been from the radicals and the materialistic side. There
is another matter that I hope I will have time to talk over with you, even
though it will be a busily crowded and I am afraid I will have to entertain at
dinner that night.
Therefore, I am writing about it so that you may be prepared to react in
what brief time we will probably have for drawing aside to talk the matter
over. Since I last saw you, I have had two occasions to meet with the local
friends, and have very effectively renewed my contacts with them. This has
also given me occasion to make some comparisons between the work as I
knew it rather intimately before and as it seems to be going now. I regret to
have to call your attention to what seems to me to be something approaching
stagnation in the inter-racial work at Washington. This but confirms a feeling
that I have had all along now for several years that unfortunate personality
influences have crept into the situation and decidedly hampered the develop-
166
alain locke: faith & philosophy
ment of this very important practical phase of the Cause. For a considerable
while I thought this was my own personal bias concerning Mrs. Haney and
Mrs. Cook who have pioneered so much in this field and have now for a long
while exerted a control in it which threatens to become a monopolistic and
hampering one. Their conception, I fear, is limited by their own personal likes
and dislikes and a notion that only select groups should be worked with. You
will know for a fact that there has not been much enthusiasm or much real
progress in this aspect of the work in Washington. While I am not prepared to
say that this is the only cause, it seems to me to be one of the main reasons.
Several of the friends who have more democratic and more vigorously crusading convictions in this matter have not been able to function because of this
almost monopolistic conservatism and jealousy. Much as I dislike to sound a
negative note, I feel that I must in order to get positive ones established.
I would like to talk over with you the wisdom of such practical steps as
might be necessary, if after consultation it seems that this interpretation of the
situation is even approximately correct.22
Active for many years in the Washington, D.C., Bahá’í community, Mariam Haney served on various national committees and was an
editor of The Bahá’í World.23 Locke’s estimate of Haney was initially
positive. After all, she was probably the one who originally invited
him to his first Bahá’í fireside back in 1915. She remained his primary
contact with the Bahá’í community for some years.
Locke’s criticism of Haney is illuminated by archival material that
has recently come to light: a series of five letters from Louise Boyle, a
Washington, D.C. Bahá’í, to Florence (Breed) Khan, wife of Ali Kuli
Khan, the Persian consul in Washington, D.C., both of whom were
also Bahá’ís. Evidently, there was an “estrangement” between Agnes
Parsons and Mariam Haney serious enough to cause “disruption” to the
“Unity of Washington,” which Parsons felt personally commissioned
by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá to preserve.
Speaking of Parsons’ death (1934), Boyle writes: “The fact that
Mason [Charles Mason Remey], Alain Locke and I [Louise Boyle]
were all ‘brought back’ at the time of her death should prove we could
have accomplished nothing under the old condition.”24 This statement
seems to imply that Remey, Locke, and Boyle were also affected by the
estrangement, which appears to have developed into a conflict between
Boyle herself and Haney. It was during Mariam Haney’s absence (probably in August 1935) that Louise Boyle was elected as “chairman” to
the local Amity Committee, which included “Locke, Cobb, Lehse,
Atkinson, Florence King (whose father says she will not serve), and
estrangement and rededication
167
Miss Armstrong from N.Y.”25 In any event, Mariam Haney was not
selected.
Within the committee itself, even with Haney’s absence, relations were fragile. Boyle writes: “I look upon the Race Amity Work
as having tremendous possibilities for the future if we can have a
little harmony in the Committee.”26 These internal tensions were no
doubt exacerbated by external problems. Boyle speaks of an “official
investigation” into charges of Communism at Howard University. “Dr.
Locke,” she notes, “is going to Russia this summer, he said, in order to
be able to aid on his return, as having studied the conditions.”27 In her
next letter, dated 9 September 1935, Boyle remarks on Locke’s intent
to ameliorate the situation: “Dr. Locke returns from Europe on the 23rd
to strengthen both the teaching and Amity work.”28 If true, this is a significant statement in that it shows that Locke was still an active Bahá’í
locally at this time.
As previously mentioned, Coralie Franklin Cook was a
Washingtonian Bahá’í. She was Chair of Oratory at Howard University
and a member of the District of Columbia Board of Education. Her
husband George William Cook was also a professor at Howard, having
served as Professor of Commercial and International Law and as Dean
of the School of Commerce and Finance.29 Cook “represented the
Bahá’í Faith among black intellectuals in Washington, D.C. since about
1910.”30 Recalling that the National Spiritual Assembly invited a group
of black and white Bahá’ís for a special consultation on race that took
place on 8 January 1927, Haney and Cook and were both in that group,
as was Locke himself. How and why Locke became disaffected from
these two mainstays of the race amity movement is not clear.
Locke was critical of other leading Washingtonian Bahá’ís as
well. By 1931, Locke had complained of “the deceptive platitudes
of some of our friends, including even Dr. Leslie P. Hill.”31 This is a
particularly stunning statement since Hill, who was the black principal
of the Cheyney Institute (a teacher training school), had spoken at
the Philadelphia convention of 22-23 October 1924, and was among
those invited by the National Spiritual Assembly in November 1926
to a special consultation on race.32 That having been said, the Bahá’í
committee work that Locke had consistently and enthusiastically
accepted was in the planning and execution of Bahá’í-sponsored, raceunity events. Oddly enough, but predictably, Locke was not on the
local “Inter-Racial Committee,” whose members had been appointed
168
alain locke: faith & philosophy
in the preceding year of April 1934-April 1935, and reappointed by
the local Spiritual Assembly of Washington, D.C. sometime prior
to 29 June 1935 (presumably in April). Its members included “Mr.”
[Dr.] Stanwood Cobb, Mrs. Coralie Cook, Mrs. Mariam Haney, Miss
Florence King, and Mrs. Gertrude Mattern.33 Locke’s name is conspicuously absent.
Appointment to Teaching Committee and Resignation: The Bahá’ís still
had hopes for Locke. The Washington Bahá’í Assembly certainly did.
Now that he was no longer serving on a national Bahá’í committee,
why not a local one? The local Spiritual Assembly of Washington, D.C
appointed Locke to the Teaching Committee. The members of this arm
of the Assembly consisted of Dr. Stanwood Cobb, Chairman; Charles
Mason Remey, Vice Chairman; Mrs. John Stewart, Secretary; Mr.
Clarence Baker; Mrs. Louise Boyle; Mr. William E. Gibson; Dr. Alain
Locke; Mr. George Miller; and Mrs. Ethel M. Murray.34 Locke may
have attended some of the committee’s consultations. That he probably
did is based on the following statement by Louise Boyle: “Dr. Locke
returns from Europe on the 23rd to strengthen both the teaching and
Amity work.”35
Locke may have reacted negatively to a situation described by
Boyle as follows: “A member of the teaching committee is causing
grave concern because she is in personal touch with the Guardian and
is using his letters as a lever.”36 In December, Locke declined to serve
on this committee, as indicated in his letter of resignation:
December 10, 1935
Dr. Stanwood Cobb
Chairman, The Teaching Committee,
Washington Bahai Assembly
Dear Mr. Cobb:
I am indirectly informed of a meeting of the Teaching Committee set
for December 14th, which I deeply regret not being able to attend because
of important engagements in New York City over this coming week-end.
Obviously information as to dates of meeting are given at the meetings
themselves, and by reason of the Bahai calendar, these revolve and do not
occur on the stated days of the week, nor is an advance calendar of meetings
available.
Under the circumstances of having missed so many meetings of the
Committee and the probability in view of heavy out of town engagements
estrangement and rededication
169
from now through April, I consider it regrettably my duty to resign my membership, that my place may be filled by some worker who can participate
more regularly and helpfully in the consultation so necessary to the effective
work of the Cause. I deeply appreciate the confidence of the Community in
offering me this post of service, which I would have been glad to discharge if
my duties and commitments permitted. However, I have a heavy program of
editorial and visiting lecture assignments, and as you know am frequently out
of town on one or other of these missions.
With the hope that my position will be sympathetically understood and
granted, and best wishes for the furtherance of the Committee’s work, I am,
Sincerely yours,
[Alain Locke]37
The reader is struck by the tone of respect conveyed in this letter.
Here Locke makes very clear how much he traveled. Perhaps this 1935
letter should be considered as evidence of his typical schedule—evidence that would go far in explaining why he was not involved in
the community in 1934, and may account for why he did so little in
1936. In either or both cases, Locke was honest about the fact that his
schedule did not permit him the luxury of involvement in extracurricular, local Bahá’í community affairs. In other words, he was simply
unavailable. Notwithstanding, Locke would be available for some
Bahá’í engagements outside Washington, D.C. While feeling impelled
to resign from the Teaching Committee, Locke did not decline teaching
the Bahá’í Faith.
“Abdul-Bahá on World Peace” and International Banquet: On 26
November 1935, Locke gave a public address at a Bahá’í-sponsored
meeting in Washington D.C., held at the Tea House of the Dodge Hotel.
His topic was “Abdul-Baha on World Peace.”38 Of the details of this
event there are none. But it helps delineate a pattern in which Locke
was less inclined in later years to devote his time to the work of Bahá’í
planning, though still willing to speak at Bahá’í-sponsored race-amity
events.
Having personally observed (and possibly having been caught up
in) personality conflicts in the course of committee work may have
been the prime reason for Locke’s estrangement from Bahá’í administrative service. Yet, when called upon to speak at a Bahá’í event,
there is scarcely any record of his reluctance to do so. This pattern is
borne out by Louise Boyle’s description of an “International Banquet”
at which Locke was invited to speak, either in late October or early
170
alain locke: faith & philosophy
November:
An International Dinner, or Banquet, as it was called, arranged by the
Assembly—I should say, suggested by them and kept under their auspices,
but arranged by poor me—had to be an Amity [i.e., interracial] affair, as any
Baha’i meal must be, so the Amity Committee were the hosts for it and I the
chairman. I did not dream it would be so wonderfully confirmed in all the
circumstances, but it was. The Service Committee aided as hostesses and
ushers. Was assisted in finding a most dignified place, run by Quakers, when
the Dodge [Hotel] failed for us for that night after making the date! I got nine
Negroes to sing the Spirituals without accompaniment, and Mason, Dr. Locke
and a young Chinese [were scheduled] to [speak] briefly before Ruhi [Afnan].
The music was exceptionally impressive and the 115 or more guests all very
happy. The singers gave “Steal away to Jesus” after an Ave Maria closed
the meeting, and “stole” out, one by one in the dearest way. We all left the
speakers table to thank them on the broad red velvet stairway, and they halted
before the large doors, for an encore. There were tears in many eyes at the
sheer beauty of the moment. The setting was the old Chas. Glover Mansion
next the Washington Club.39
It is significant that nine African American singers performed
spirituals at this event. Here was a conscious overture to the black
community. Boyle also deliberately scheduled a Chinese speaker for
the dinner, and she offers her view that “any Baha’i meal must” be an
“Amity affair.” It appears that Locke, though scheduled as part of the
program, could not be present. The same letter reports that: “Allen was
away, though to have been a speaker.”40 This was a rare exception to
the rule that Locke, during this period of his Bahá’í life, would never
turn down an invitation to speak. This observation is partly confirmed
by Boyle herself, who further on in the letter writes: “Meanwhile the
teaching work and public meetings are going forward,—the 12th and
26th [November] to be at the Dodge. Stanwood, Mrs. Parmelee, Allen
Locke and me to speak.”41 As a Bahá’í, Locke was more effective as a
teacher rather than an administrator.
Locke began to distance himself from the local Washington, D.C.
Bahá’í community, while remaining sporadically active on a national
level for some time to come. The year 1935 marks the end of Locke’s
active participation in the Washington, D.C. Bahá’í community.
Growing Distance (1936): From here to the end of his life, Bahá’í
documents on Locke are uneven and sparse. There are many gaps in the
record. These may be due to the inadequacy of the documentary record
or to Locke’s inactivity as a Bahá’í. Nonetheless, Locke’s contributions
estrangement and rededication
171
as a Bahá’í did not trail off entirely. Some of his finest work was yet to
come. After his Bahá’í compatriots had learned not to expect too much
from Locke during these latter years, those contributions were as significant as his early ones. In some ways, they would prove to be even
more important. Here, a definite pattern emerges: Locke’s activity as a
Bahá’í was primarily the outcome of his work at both international and
national levels, rather than at a local level.
Shortly before the summer of 1936 began, Locke was extremely
pained by the fall of Haile Selassie in Ethiopia. In a letter dated 5 May
1936 to his patron, Charlotte Osgood Mason, he comments: “Suppose
the real gloom for the last week has been caused by the daily agony of
the Ethiopian news—and the final collapse of Haile Selassie. I had forgotten your words about his bad tactics of trying to fight a white man’s
war instead of fighting according to native instinct; until talking it
over with Professor [Ralph] Bunche yesterday, he said: ‘Well if he had
relied on his mountains instead of the League of Nations they would be
fighting yet’.”42 In understanding how Locke thought, it is important
to keep in mind that he always maintained a global perspective. For
this and other reasons, experts on Locke credit him with having internationalized the racial crisis as not simply an American crisis, but as an
international issue as well.
At home, Locke lectured across America, partly for academic
advancement, and largely as a means of travel and for pay. At times his
speaking schedule was so busy as to convey the impression that this
was a second vocation. Take the month of March, for instance. On 2
March 1936, Locke spoke on “The Negro’s Contribution to America”
at Smith College. The next day, on 3 March 1936, Locke participated
in the Springfield Forum, sponsored by the American Association for
Adult Education in New York City. The topic of his speech was “The
Negro in the Two Americas.” Referring to this event in a letter, Locke
wrote: “In the Springfield talk I will give the Nordic skull a round
hard crack—but even that is fashionable now—except perhaps in New
England.”43 Yet, in another letter, dated 30 March 1936, to patron
Charlotte Osgood Mason, Locke despairs of getting “so little done
that really amounts to anything.”44 Apparently, Locke did not consider
himself to be terribly effective with his black audiences. He writes:
But then—and this isn’t all alibi, the Negro audiences I meet—do not want the
truth and do not keep at all within that very necessary soberness which so far
172
alain locke: faith & philosophy
as I can see alone makes truth-speaking possible. Of course you could generate your own atmosphere—as I yet haven’t that power. But it may come—and
when it does I will begin to be effective. (Terrible waste of time, though.)45
Of course, all this meant that he would simply be unavailable for
Bahá’í service. Whether at home or abroad, Locke was really too busy
to participate much in local Bahá’í activities. But Locke preserved his
Bahá’í commitment. He is included on the “List of Believers—January
22, 1936”46 for that year.
The broader Bahá’í context is also needed to interpret Locke’s
fluctuating and somewhat waning levels of Bahá’í involvement. At the
national level, Bahá’í race relations went into further decline. This year
proved to be a great setback for Bahá’í race work. This was because the
National Inter-Racial Amity Committee was dissolved by the National
Spiritual Assembly in 1936. Locke had already been lost in the process.
At the international level, Locke’s signal Bahá’í contribution for this
year was his essay, “The Orientation of Hope” published in The Bahá’í
World for 1932-1934.47 This is an instance of Locke’s sporadic yet significant Bahá’í contributions made during this period and in the years
to follow.
To place all this in the wider context of his personal and professional life, in 1936 under the auspices of the Associates in Negro Folk
Education, Locke established the Bronze Booklets on the History,
Problems, and Cultural Contributions of the Negro series, written
by such leading African American scholars as Sterling A. Brown and
Ralph Bunche. A problem arose when the ANFE commissioned W.
E. B. Du Bois to contribute one of the Bronze Booklets, but exercised its veto power over Locke when it refused to publish Du Bois’
manuscript. Locke himself wrote two Bronze Booklets: The Negro and
His Music and Negro Art Past and Present. Published between 1936
and 1942, the nine booklets became a standard reference for teaching
African American history. The reader can see that Locke invested the
majority of his time in bolstering “race pride” and group self-respect
among African Americans, on the one hand, and promoting improved
race relations on the other. And his Bahá’í contributions were simply
part and parcel of his larger work, whether as a “race man,” a cultural
pluralist, or a Bahá’í.
Cipher from Silence (1937): From the standpoint of Locke’s Bahá’í
activity, the year 1937 is a cipher. Locke was again on the Bahá’í
estrangement and rededication
173
rolls: he is included on the eligible “Voting List—Washington Bahá’í
Community—1937.”48 Otherwise, he has temporarily vanished from
the Bahá’í horizon.
Preference for Activism (1938): Again, Locke’s name appears on a
“list of Recognized Believers of the Washington Bahá’í Community,
as approved by the Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the City of
Washington, D.C. January 1938.”49 Political activism had entered
Locke’s life. Unlike W. E. B. Du Bois, Locke strongly supported
Roosevelt’s New Deal. In a letter dated 27 October 1938 to the editor of
the Chicago Defender, Locke endorsed two candidates for Congress.50
Bahá’ís are supposed to remain aloof from partisanship in politics.
Here, Locke adheres to that principle somewhat, voting as an independent.
Continued Absence (1939-1940): Locke remains on a “list of Recognized
Believers of Washington (D.C.) Bahá’í Community” dated 11 January
1939.51 Locally, Locke is a Bahá’í in name only. This would become
cause for concern, especially on the part of Louis Gregory.
In 1940, the ANFE published Locke’s The Negro in Art: A Pictorial
Record of the Negro Artist and the Negro Theme in Art, which was the
leading book in its field and Locke’s best-known work after The New
Negro. Certainly this project would have taken priority over any other
commitments, Bahá’í projects included. There are other examples of
Locke’s non-Bahá’í commitments during this period. Together with
seventy-eight other leading American intellectuals this year, Locke
became a charter member of the Jewish Theological Seminary’s
Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion, which published its
annual proceedings. This organization originated in a November 1939
colloquy of academics and seminary presidents convened by Jewish
Theological Seminary president (later chancellor) Louis Finfelstein.
Through its collaboration of scholars from a wide array of disciplines,
the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion championed the
preservation of democracy and intellectual freedom as a conscious
response to the rise of totalitarianism in Europe.52 Conference proceedings were, on most occasions, subsequently published, with Locke’s
papers among them.53 While he did write several essays for The Bahá’í
World, and although these volumes were typically given to civic leaders
and government officials, in practice the real audience for those essays
174
alain locke: faith & philosophy
was the Bahá’ís themselves. Locke could not expect to reach the public
through Bahá’í publishing venues.
Contact by Louis Gregory: Beside Locke’s name on the Bahá’í list for
1940 is the note, “No telephone.”54 Assuming that such service was
available and that he could have easily afforded it, Locke’s choice not
to have a phone provided some respite and relief perhaps from the
many demands that were placed on him. His “castle” had a rampart that
would not be breached by wires.
As his friend, admirer, and elder Bahá’í brother, Louis Gregory was
keenly aware of Locke’s situation. Gregory made repeated efforts—not
so much to re-engage Locke as an active Bahá’í—but to urge him to
become nationally known as a Bahá’í. Gregory faithfully kept in touch
with Locke over the years, and the relationship was a reciprocal and
genuine friendship, although not a close one. During 5-10 August 1940,
at the Green Acre Bahá’í School in Eliot, Maine, Louis Gregory and
Curtis Kelsey conducted a workshop on race unity. Prior to August 5,
Gregory had sent Locke a syllabus of this course. (Oddly, Gregory and
Kelsey do not cite Locke in the “Bibliography” that appears on the last
page of the syllabus.) On that syllabus appears the following statement
by Bahá’u’lláh, with no reference given, but reliably translated by Dr.
Zia M. Bagdadi:
Fortunate are those souls who have not become slaves of the color of the
world and whatever is contained therein, and who were honored by the color
of God, which is sanctified above the different colors of the world. And none
but those who are severed know that color.55
Handwritten on the title page was this short note: “We do not forget
you. Call again! L.G.G.”56 Without wishing to belabor the obvious, it
is clear that Locke had called Gregory. Even during relative lulls in
his active Bahá’í life, even during periods of what might be regarded
as estrangement, Locke kept alive some of his closest Bahá’í contacts.
These relationships were neither defunct nor entirely one-sided.
The National Stage: An instance of Locke’s predilection for a national
stage is the Library of Congress concert. On 20 December 1940, the
Music Division of the Library of Congress hosted a concert of traditional Negro folk music, performed by the Golden Gate Quartet,
accompanied by Joshua White on guitar and vocals. Alain Locke gave
estrangement and rededication
175
the opening commentary on “The Negro Spiritual” and served as the
event’s “time-keeper”—probably a euphemism for “master of ceremonies.” Blues and ballads were introduced by poet Sterling Brown, with
Alan Lomax as commentator on the “reels” and work songs that the
quartet performed. The official program notes cite the occasion: “The
Librarian of Congress and the Gertrude Clarke Whittall Foundation
present a Festival of Music commemorating the seventy-fifth anniversary of the proclamation of the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution
of the United States.” Sound recordings of the concert were made in the
Library of Congress’s Coolidge Auditorium in Washington, D.C. and
produced by the Music Division and the Recording Laboratory of the
Library of Congress.57
Jeffrey Stewart has published a transcript of Locke’s talk. Apart
from the intrinsic value of his commentary, Locke made a trenchant
statement on democracy:
Now, of course, the slave didn’t get his democracy from the Bill of Rights.
He got it from his reading of the moral justice of the Hebrew prophets and
his concept of the wrath of God. And, particularly, his mind seized on the
experience of the Jews in Egypt and of the figure of Moses, the savior of the
people, leading them out of bondage, and, therefore, there is not only no more
musically beautiful spiritual, but no more symbolic spiritual than “Go Down
Moses.”58
Over the next several years, Locke would focus more and more
of his attention on the idea of democracy itself, which was bound up
with the American experience. To be American did not necessarily
entail being democratic in practice. But it did presume a commitment
to democracy in principle. This principle, which dates back to the
Declaration of Independence and which asserted itself as the supreme
law of the land when enshrined in that other American scripture, the
Constitution, became the African American’s most effective weapon for
obliging white Americans to see and admit the contradiction between
racism, forced segregation, and the ideals of American democracy.
On 7 May 1941, Locke was in the limelight when he spoke at a
dedication ceremony that was nationally broadcast on radio. First Lady
Eleanor Roosevelt was present to preside over the dedication of the
Southside Community Art Center, a predominantly African American
center in Chicago, built as part of the Illinois Federal Art Project.59
Locke was one of nine “After Dinner Speakers.” In a letter dated 22
176
alain locke: faith & philosophy
March 1941, Locke mentions having “had several recent contacts with
her” and that “she has a copy of the book,” referring to his new publication, The Negro in Art.
Retirement from the Bahá’í Community: Locke was in such great
demand that he had little time or inclination for Bahá’í activities. But
to leave it at that evades a deeper issue. Naturally, for years Bahá’ís
had high hopes for Locke’s promotion of their Faith. In many ways,
Locke had frustrated these hopes and no doubt had disappointed many
Bahá’ís. We can only imagine Locke’s nagging sense of having to
explain himself to the Bahá’ís. That time came. It was precipitated by a
letter of inquiry from the Washington Bahá’í Assembly. It read:
SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHA’IS
of Washington, D.C.
1763 Columbia Road
January 27, 1941
Dr. Alain Locke
1326 R Street N W
Washington, D.C.
Dear Dr. Locke,
The Spiritual Assembly of this City has been requested by the National
Spiritual Assembly to make any necessary revisions in the Membership List
of our Baha’i community so that we can send an official list to enable them to
determine the number of delegates to be assigned to this community for the
coming Baha’i Convention.
Therefore, in line with duty, the Local Assembly is trying to function to
the best of its ability, and would appreciate it to the fullest extent if you will
advise us as soon as possible whether you wish to have your name retained
on our membership list.
With cordial Baha’i greetings,
In the service of the Cause,
(Signed) Mariam Haney
Corresponding Secretary60
There was a more basic question in the letter’s subtext: Did Locke
still consider himself a Bahá’í? It took him over two months to reply,
possibly after some soul-searching. Consequently, while his name does
reappear on the Washington, D.C. Bahá’í membership list for 1941
(“No telephone”),61 Locke requested that the local Assembly henceforth regard him as an “isolated believer” and therefore not a member
of their community:
March 30, 1941
estrangement and rededication
177
Mrs Mariam Haney
Corresponding Secretary
The Spiritual Assembly of
the Bahais of Washington,
Dear Mrs. Haney:
I hope my long delay in answering your inquiry of January 27th hasn’t
seemed discourteous. I have been very busy, with frequent out of town
engagements, including a series of visiting lectures at Talladega College.
I naturally am reluctant to sever a spiritual bond with the Bahai community, for I still hold to a firm belief in the truth of the Bahai principles.
However, I am not in a position, and haven’t been for years, to participate
very practically or even with the fullest enthusiasm, in the collective activities of the local friends. One of my reservations is, of course, the seeming
impossibility of any real crusading attack on the practices of racial prejudice
in spite of the good will and fair principles of the local believers. They are not
to blame perhaps for their ineffectualness any more than we, who are in more
practical movements are for our absorption of the time and energy in what
we regard as more immediately important. Some time ago, I expressed to Mr
Remey a desire to retire formally from the community and to be regarded as
an “isolated believer.” In view of your direct inquiry as to membership status,
I respectfully and regretfully renew that request.
Very sincerely yours,
Alain Locke.62
Clearly there is some degree of estrangement here, although Locke
was circumspect. In as polite a way as possible, he indicates that he
does not have the “fullest enthusiasm” for participation in local Bahá’í
activities. Locke’s request to be an “isolated believer” was not meaningful in a Bahá’í context, as an “isolated believer” is a Bahá’í who
lives in a city where no other Bahá’ís reside. Typically, an isolated
believer may live some distance from other Bahá’ís. Locke used the
term “isolated believer” to express his wish that he not be regarded as
part of the community, while yet remaining a Bahá’í.
His reply indicates that Locke had made much the same request
earlier. The letter simply formalized an apparently long-standing
reality. Locke’s avowal that “I still hold to a firm belief in the truth of
the Bahai principles” allows for a distinction between his core belief
as a Bahá’í and his estrangement from the local community. It appears
that Locke’s faith up to this point was unwavering at its deepest level,
although his confidence in the local community was lacking. It should
also be noted that Locke’s status as a public figure created the attendant
difficulties associated with fame and success.
178
alain locke: faith & philosophy
The Unfinished Business of Democracy (1942): Locke was called to a
broader purpose. During the crisis precipitated by the attack on Pearl
Harbor and the nation’s entry into World War II, the exigencies of that
moment in history and a sense of national purpose steeled Locke in his
resolve to draw the American public’s attention to the “unfinished business of democracy.” For America’s world role would inextricably be
bound to its own moral authority, compromised as it was by the “separate but equal” fiction of legal segregation. To exercise moral influence
for democracy abroad, America had to resolve issues of democracy at
home.
As a writer and editor, this was an extraordinary year for Locke.
One of Locke’s finest philosophical essays, “Pluralism and Intellectual
Democracy,” was published in the proceedings volume of the Second
Symposium of the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion.63
This was also the year Locke published When Peoples Meet: A Study
of Race and Culture, a multi-author work that he co-edited with
Bernhard J. Stern, lecturer in anthropology at Columbia University.64
In November 1942, Locke served as guest editor for a special edition
of the Survey Graphic, a volume entitled, Color: Unfinished Business
of Democracy.
While Locke appears not to have publicly identified with the
Bahá’ís at this time, he did do so privately. Respecting his written
request not to be removed from the roster, Locke’s name appears on the
Washington, D.C. Bahá’í membership list for 1942.65 Locke continued
to discourse on spiritual topics, but without any direct reference to the
Faith. A close study of his essays and speeches during this time reveals
not a hint of lapsing back into his Episcopalian past, although he did
speak in churches from time to time and enjoyed their worship services.
At this point in his life, Locke’s spiritual orientation transcended affiliation (“provincialisms,” as he would say) and may be characterized as
a “transconfessional affinity” with the followers of all religions. To all
people of goodwill he spoke universally.
Speaks on Spirituality Without Reference to Faith: There is an example
of this. On 28 May 1942, on a show called “Town Meeting,” Locke on
with panel of other speakers spoke on the topic, “Is There A Spiritual
Basis for World Unity?” This is precisely the kind of question that
would interest a Bahá’í, not to mention the more progressive members
of the listening audience. A transcript of the show was printed shortly
estrangement and rededication
179
after, in the June issue of “Town Meeting: Bulletin of America’s Town
Meeting on the Air.”66 All guest speakers—Locke, Mordecai Johnson,
Doxey Wilkerson, and Leon Ransom—were professors at Howard
University, with the exception of Johnson, who was president of
Howard. The moderator was George V. Denny, Jr., and the show was
broadcast from the campus in Washington, D.C.
In his introduction, Denny said that each of the presenters “hold
diametrically opposed views on the question we’ve posed: ‘Is There
a Basis for Spiritual Unity in the World Today?’” With regard to
Locke and Johnson, there seems to have not only been a divergence
in viewpoint, but personal friction as well, related to university issues.
Johnson, who was the first to speak, began by saying, “Man is an
animal.” He hastened to add: “But man is a religious animal.”67After
idealizing Christianity and the civilizing role it should play, Locke
opened his remarks by responding: “One of the troubles of today’s
world tragedy is the fact that this same religion, of which Dr. Johnson
has spoken with his grand idealisms, has, when institutionalized, been
linked with politics and the flag and empire, with the official church
and sectarianism.” With withering criticism, Locke also spoke of the
“superciliously self-appointed superior races aspiring to impose their
preferred culture, self-righteous creeds and religions expounding
monopolies on ways of life and salvation” as “poor seedbeds for world
unity and world order.” Speaking of the “brotherhood of man” as an
ancient, venerable principle, Locke remarks: “We must consider very
carefully why such notions have for so long wandered disembodied in
the world—witness the dismembered League of Nations and Geneva’s
sad, deserted nest.”68 With characteristic, extemporaneous eloquence,
Locke added, trenchantly:
The fact is, the idealistic exponents of world unity and human brotherhood
have throughout the ages and even today expected their figs to grow from
thistles. We cannot expect to get international bread from sociological stone
whether it be the granite of national self-sufficiency, the flint of racial antagonisms, or the adamant of religious partisanship. . . . The question pivots,
therefore, not on the desirability of world unity, but upon the more realistic
issue of its practicability.69
True to his philosophical bent, Locke conveyed to the immediate
audience the misimpression that he, in fact, saw no spiritual basis for
world unity at all. During the question-answer period that followed, a
180
alain locke: faith & philosophy
lady asked: “Dr. Locke. As a teacher of philosophy, what do you offer
your students as a substitute for the spiritual ideas that you claim do
not exist?” (Applause.) To which Locke replied: “Well, that’s a poser,
and I can’t give any of my lectures, some of them dealing with some
of the greatest advocates of spiritual ideals that the world has known.
One of the tragic things which show our present limited horizons is that
there are very few institutions where, let us say, the great philosophies
of the East are studied; and when they are and as they are, we will be a
little nearer to that spiritual unity, I think, that you think I don’t believe
in.”70
The moderator would not let Locke answer a subsequent question
from a man in the audience, who asked: “Dr. Locke. If you consider
spiritual unity desirable, what do you offer in lieu of the major religions
of the world?”71 This was a question as excellent as it was leading, and
it points to one of Locke’s weaknesses: While keen on framing problems, and articulate at the level of principle, he sometimes lacked the
“practicability” that he himself said the world so desperately needed.
Locke had already distanced himself from his own, chosen religion.
As a result, he came across to the audience as somewhat critical of
Christianity and vaguely favorable to Eastern philosophy.
Haiti (1943): Locke’s role as cultural ambassador for the United States
began early in 1943. Along with jazz orchestra leader Benny Goodman
and composer Deems Taylor, in January, Locke was named to a special
advisory committee to brief the State Department’s Division of Cultural
Relations “regarding the stimulation of musical interchange among the
American republics.”72 This was an event leading up to his experience
in Haiti.
One major engagement for Locke this year was the Institute for
Religious Studies conference, sponsored by the Jewish Theological
Seminary of America in New York. At the session, “Group Relations
and Group Antagonisms,” Locke, presented a lecture on “The Negro
Group.” This talk was later published.73 Also this year, Locke produced
an annotated bibliography, World View on Race and Democracy: A
Study Guide in Human Group Relations.74 An oil-on-canvas portrait
of Alain Locke was painted by Betsy Graves Reyneau, circa 19431944. The portrait was exhibited 2-28 May 1944 in the Smithsonian’s
National Collection of Fine Arts, “Special Exhibition of Portraits of
Leading Negro Citizens.”
estrangement and rededication
181
Although a public intellectual, Locke at this time continued, for
the most, to be a private Bahá’í. In addition to being unavailable to
the Washington Bahá’í community, Locke would be out of town for
a while. He was bound for Haiti. On his return, however, his attitude
towards the Faith would take a turn for the better.
Cultural Ambassador to Haiti: From 9 April-10 July 1943, Locke
took leave of Howard University to serve as Inter-American Exchange
Professor to Haiti for three months under the joint auspices of the
American Committee for Inter-American Artistic and Intellectual
Relations and the Haitian Ministry of Education, whose director,
Maurice Dartique, Locke personally met in March 1941, in Washington, D.C.75 His appointment, which was originally scheduled for the
previous academic year, was delayed because of the war, which prevented him from getting the necessary priority authorization for his
trip to Port-au-Prince. (During that time, no definite plane reservations
for travel abroad could be made without a government priority.) His
appointment ended up being for the third trimester, which in Haiti ran
from “the week after Easter to the middle of July.”
Prior to leaving for Port-au-Prince, Locke had paid Howard colleague Louis T. Achille the sum of $200.00 to translate his series of
Haiti lectures into French. On reaching Haiti, however, Locke realized
that the intellectual elite there lacked the basic background as to the
racial situation in the States. His lectures, as originally written, assumed
too much and so he undertook extensive revisions to four of his lectures
accordingly.76 Dr. Camille Lherisson, who served as Locke’s translator
during the former’s visits to various schools and short impromptu talks,
then translated these revisions into French. Locke, who was fluent in
German but “inadequate” in French, succeeded in presenting most of
his public lectures in French, particularly his lecture series at the French
Seminary at Cap Haitian. As a courtesy, Locke asked Lherisson to
present the fifth lecture. “My French delivery,” Locke reports, “was far
from perfect, but improved as the series went on.”77 With the exception of the sixth and final lecture, which was held in the University of
Haiti’s Rex Theatre, all of Locke’s public lectures were delivered in the
Aula of the School of Law.
The sixth lecture, “The Negro in the Three Americas,” was published in English the following year. It expresses the underlying thesis
of Locke’s talks. Speaking of the historical legacy of slavery and its
182
alain locke: faith & philosophy
persistent after-effects, and of the need to resolve these problems in the
interests of democracy, Locke writes: “That the Negro’s situation in this
hemisphere has this constructive contribution to make to the enlargement of the practice of democracy has been the main conviction and
contention of these discussions.”78
According to Locke’s report, the lectures prompted a need for
their publication. “After the series was over, in fact before,” he writes,
“considerable demand became evident for publication of the full text;
large quotation of passages having appeared in the newspapers.”79 On
the recommendation of U.S. Ambassador White, the American Haitian
Coordination Committee (renamed the Committee on Intercultural
Cooperation), underwrote the expenses for a print run of 1,200 copies
of Le rôle du Negro dans la culture des Amerique (1943).80 Locke was
able to carry the project to near completion before he left Haiti for ten
days in Cuba. The rest, including final proofreading, was in the capable
hands of Dr. Lherisson, for subsequent publication by the L’Imprimerie
d’Etat. Locke dedicated the book to President Lescot.81 These lectures
formed the nucleus of grand project that Locke believed would be his
magnum opus.82
Bahá’í Contacts in Port-au-Prince?: Locke’s relationship with the
Bahá’ís in Haiti remains unknown. American Bahá’ís had already traveled to Haiti as Bahá’í “pioneers” (missionaries). Louis Gregory and
his wife Louise pioneered to Haiti in 1937, with the goal of establishing
a Bahá’í community there. They left on 21 April 1937.
On 4 April 1943, Locke received a letter from another Bahá’í
pioneer Ellsworth Blackwell (1902-1978) who was living in Haiti at
the time. Blackwell was a distinguished African American Bahá’í who,
after serving on the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the
United States, pioneered to Haiti from 1940-1943, returning there in
1950, and again in 1960, where he remained until 1975. The letter read
as follows:
L’Assemblée Spirituelle Des Bahais de Port-au-Prince, Haiti
Adresse:
Gerald G. McBean
Ruelle Charles Jeanty
Bas Peu de Chose
Port-au-Prince, Haiti
c/o American Consulate
estrangement and rededication
183
Port au Prince, Haiti
April 4, 1943
Dear Bahá’í Friend:
It is our understanding that you will soon be in Haiti. Therefore, we are
taking this opportunity to welcome you in the name of the Local Spiritual
Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Port au Prince.
Anything at all that we can do to make your stay in Haiti pleasant or any
other assistance we can render, we will be most happy to do so.
You can reach us at either of the above addresses or you may call Mr.
McBean at 3426.
The undersigned are, for your further information, the Bahá’í Pioneers
to Haiti.
Hoping to hear from you in the near future, we are,
Faithfully in His Service,
Ellsworth and Ruth Blackwell83
It is not known if Locke responded to this letter.
Youth Rally for Race Unity (New York): After effectively having resigned
from the Washington Bahá’í community in all but name, it is surprising
perhaps to see Locke participating in a Bahá’í event once again. But
his estrangement was really directed towards the Washington, D.C.
Bahá’í community. Locke was more inclined to make appearances in
the Bahá’í community of his other home, New York. One can call this
a pattern of selective engagement. Locke’s sudden reappearance at a
public Bahá’í event would take place during the series of events leading
up to Bahá’í Centenary (1944), marking the hundredth anniversary of
the inception of Bahá’í history—which traces back to the Declaration
of the Báb in Iran on 22 May 1844. Locke’s speaking engagement took
place on 24 October 1943.
Two individuals seem to have been instrumental in persuading
Locke to accept this invitation to speak to youth. In a letter dated 11
October 1943 to Locke, Robert Gulick, a Bahá’í academic, wrote: “I
understand from Miss Juliet Thompson that you are going to speak at
the Bahá’í center on the afternoon of October 24th. You will recall my
conversation with you concerning the Youth Rally for Race Unity to
precede the other meeting. We have changed the date of the Rally to
coincide with the time of your coming. We trust that you will find it
possible to appear at the Rally at 2:30 P. M., October 24th.”84
Bahá’ís who knew Locke were quite aware of his busy schedule.
On this and on other occasions as well, organizers of Bahá’í events
184
alain locke: faith & philosophy
were willing to the change dates of those events if that would ensure
Locke’s acceptance of their invitation. This shows how much Locke
was valued as a Bahá’í speaker. On 21 October 1943, Bahá’í artist Juliet
Thompson, whom Gulick mentioned, sent the following telegram:
doctor alain locke =deliver 8 am dept of philosophy howard
university=we are looking forward so much to your luncheon with us
on sunday at 48 west 10 street at one oclock and hoping you will be
able to do so =juliet thompson.85
This is a significant event at this stage in Locke’s Bahá’í career.
Just as he enjoyed the company of artists, Locke found immense value
in relating to youth and in serving as their mentor. During his tenure on
the several national amity committees, Locke stressed the importance
of youth in the cause of racial reconciliation.
The National Spiritual Assembly had called for a focus on the
theme of race unity during the months of September and October 1943,
as part of the Centenary. It was only natural that the Bahá’ís of New
York would invite Alain Locke to speak on that topic. Of this event,
Louis Gregory, in his annual report, states: “Guest speakers of different races took part in the Sunday afternoon public meeting during the
two-month period, including Dr. Alain Locke of Howard University. .
. . On October 24 a Youth Rally was held, with talks by Dr. Allan [sic]
Locke and Dr. H. A. Overstreet of the College of the City of New York
on unity between the white and Negro races . . .”86 No other information on the event is available from published Bahá’í sources. But
Juliet Thompson registers her personal appreciation of Locke’s visit.
In her follow-up letter, dated 26 October 1943, Juliet Thompson had
nothing but praise for Locke’s interaction with the Bahá’í youth. She
exclaimed:
Dear Dr. Locke
Your note did come Monday morning! The mails are so slow these
days.
I am writing now to thank you with all my heart for what you did for us
Sunday. The whole day was wonderful for me! The great service you rendered
the Cause, your so very fine addresses and our talks at table when, in the midst
of a crazy world, I found myself so eased by your clarity, all meant more to
me than I can say, and I was so happy that when the night was over I wrote
to the Guardian about it. Such things cheer him, laboring as he does, under
heavy burdens.
estrangement and rededication
185
Miss Austin’s address is: 143 W. North St. N. W. Madame DreyfusBarney is at the Shoreham.
Hoping to see you soon again in New York, and with best regards from
Mrs. [?]
Most sincerely
Juliet Thompson
48 W. 10 St.
October 26
It was right when you spoke, at the Youth Rally, of the need to realize that this
Cause is essentially universal and so—for all.87
His message that “this Cause [the Bahá’í Faith] is essentially universal and so—for all” was probably quite heartfelt and genuine. At
least Locke passed the test of authenticity. His work with the youth was
a success. The occasion marked the beginning of Locke’s reconciliation with the Bahá’í Faith. In so saying, there was no reconciliation
with the Washington, D.C. Bahá’í community as such. Once again,
Locke would participate in a Bahá’í event in New York, rather than in
Washington, D.C.
On the Same Speaker Platform with Bahá’ís: On 28 November 1943,
Locke lectured on “The Background of Negro Culture” in the New
York Theosophical Society’s “Sunday Public Lectures” series. On the
very same printed program, for the Sunday lecture two weeks prior
(14 November 1943), Bahá’í diplomat Ali Kuli Khan was scheduled to
speak on “The Bahai Faith and Its Relation to World Culture.” Khan
is introduced as “former Persian Envoy to the United States, now
President of the [New York] Bahai Council.” This shows that Locke
was not averse to publicly appearing in association with the Bahá’ís.
Moral Imperatives for World Order (1944): Although Locke always
had many speaking engagements, demand for his lectures seems to
have increased in the course of this year. As would be expected, he
had a crowded schedule. A few examples of his speaking engagements
will suffice to illustrate this point. On 19 April 1944, Locke addressed
the Rochester Young Women’s Christian Association on “The Negro’s
Contribution to American Culture.” On 27-28 May 1944, Locke expatiated on “The Teaching of Dogmatic Religion in a Democratic Society”
for the Society for Ethical Culture’s Conference on the Scientific Spirit
and Democratic Faith in New York. During June 19-21, Locke pre-
186
alain locke: faith & philosophy
sented three lectures at the Institute of International Relations at Mills
College in Oakland, California: (1) Race in the Present World Crisis;
(2) Race: American Paradox and Dilemma; and (3) Moral Imperatives
for World Order.88 On 24 June 1944, Locke gave a public lecture on
“The Predicament of Minorities” Institute of International Relations,
Seattle. On 25 June 1944, Locke gave the sermon for that Sunday at
the First Methodist Church, Mount Vernon, Washington. On 26 June
1944, Locke lectured on “A Philosophy of Human Brotherhood,” again
at the Institute of International Relations in Seattle. A month later, on
30 July 1944, Locke presented a talk on “Fraternity and Democracy” in
the Church of All Nations in Los Angeles.
During this period, Locke intensified his campaign to link race
relations and democracy for the benefit of his country and a wider audience. To a limited extent, he also became a political activist while maintaining his neutrality as an independent. Of course, Locke had edited a
special issue of the Survey Graphic on Color: Unfinished Business of
Democracy, Locke was interviewed about this special issue on the air.
In a CBS radio program, “Woman’s Page of the Air,” broadcast from
station KMYR in Denver on 6 August 1944 while World War II was in
full furor, host Adelaide Hawley asked: “And you called in a staff of
specialist consultants to work with you on the special ‘Color’ edition of
the Survey Graphic, didn’t you, Professor Locke?”
Locke replied: “Yes, including such writers as Pearl Buck, Herbert
Agar and Lin Yutang.” In response to the question as to what was
meant by the “unfinished business of democracy,” Locke said: “Just
as the foundation of democracy as a national principle made necessary the declaration of the basic equality of persons, so the founding
of international democracy must guarantee the basic equality of human
groups.”89
In response to the question, “And what do you think is America’s
role in the NEW democracy?” Locke said: “Today we are, it would
seem, on the swing back to a wider democracy. We have recanted our
isolationism of 1919. We have instituted the ‘good neighbor’ policy—
we had ‘lend-lease’ before our formal entry into the war. Moreover,
the United States with its composite sampling of all human races and
peoples, is by way of becoming almost a United Nations by herself.”90
In reciting this sociological fact, Locke noted that democracy itself was
“on trial” and that “winning democracy for the Negro means winning
the war for democracy.”91 This was a clear adaptation of America’s
estrangement and rededication
187
World War II rhetoric to the race war at home.
At the Fourth Summer School Convocation of the Hampton
Institute, Locke gave the plenary address on 18 August 1944. On 11
September 1943, in the Fourth Conference on Science, Philosophy and
Religion in their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life (Columbia
University), Locke presented a paper in the session, “Philosophical
Ideas and Enduring Peace.” In a letter dated 15 November 1944, John
H. Sengstacke, chairman of the National Non-Partisan League thanked
Locke for “your service as a member of our National Board.”92 On
17 December 1944, Locke spoke on “Democracy and Christianity” at
the Community Church of Summit, New Jersey (Unitarian). It seemed
that Locke could relate democracy (and race relations) to just about
everything that was happening in America. Whoever the audience and
whatever the venue, Locke could adapt his lectures to fit particular
occasions and to address vested interests.
Tracking themes in Locke’s talks can give insight into the deeper
structure of his thought. From time to time, Locke would continue to
speak at certain Bahá’í functions. For it is safe to say that Locke’s philosophy of cultural pluralism was sacralized by Bahá’í universalism,
as his Bahá’í universalism was doubtless influenced by his philosophy.
Thematically, the topics on which he spoke in Bahá’í-sponsored events
compare quite favorably to the subjects of his other numerous lectures
and articles. A synopsis of all these topics shows the threads that run
throughout his lectures: linkages between democracy, race, and religion.
Symmetry Between Professional and Bahá’í Discourses: Locke continued to be in great demand as a public speaker. His schedule appeared
to be fully booked. His themes are familiar now, but must have been
fairly new for audiences previously unacquainted with him. In the aristocratic ambience of hotel ballrooms and suites, Locke never relented
in his mission to speak to the conscience of people of capacity and to
Americans across the nation.
One event seems to have stood out. For some reason, Locke kept
three copies of the program announcing his 31 July 1944 luncheon
lecture, “Race in the Present World Crisis,” held in the Music Room
of the Los Angeles Biltmore Hotel. The event was hosted by a citizenbased, non-political, non-profit organization called Town Hall, which
held forums on issues affecting public policy. The 24 July 1944 news-
188
alain locke: faith & philosophy
letter, Town Hall, introduced Locke’s forthcoming lecture as follows:
While the preparatory phases of the present war [World War II] were featured
by the preachers of false racist theories, the reconstruction period following
the war will present very real racial problems. When the Nazi “Aryan supermen” and the Japanese jingoists have been utterly defeated, the world will
be faced with the many questions surrounding the relations between White
nations and non-White colonial peoples, between White majorities and nonWhite minorities within the same national boundaries.93
The copy for this advance notice appears to have been written by
Locke himself. It illustrates the analogous connections he was able
to make between foreign and domestic racist ideologies. In a similar
vein, on 25 November 1925, Locke presided as chairman in the
seventh general session during the twenty-fourth annual meeting of the
National Council for the Social Sciences. The theme was the “Broader
Realization of Democratic Values.” This is hardly surprising. Locke
was pro-democracy to an almost religious degree. But democracy in
America had serious flaws. It needed to be more inclusive. American
democracy had its victims. Issues of race, class, and gender still needed
to be worked out. At this and in practically every one of his lectures to
predominantly white as well as black audiences, Locke focused on the
relationship between democracy and race.
Woodrow Wilson Memorial: Locke was asked to send a message on the
occasion of the Bahá’í observance of the twentieth anniversary of the
passing of Woodrow Wilson in New York. In a letter dated 28 January
1944, Robert Gulick made this request:
Dear Alain Locke:
February 3rd, 1944 will mark the 20th anniversary of the passing of
Woodrow Wilson. As you will note from the enclosure, the NY Bahá’ís are
commemorating the event. Shoghi Effendi sent a special cablegram stating,
“Greatly pleased associate myself . . .”
Pres. Seymour of Yale, Jan Masaryk, Sir Norman Angell & others have
sent special tributes. We should be grateful if you would send a brief message
to be read on the occasion, mentioning Wilson’s pioneer efforts for international organization to abolish war and commending the NY Bahá’ís for
remembering his services. Apparently, this will be the only commemoration
in New York! Please send your message to Hon. William Copeland Dodge,
Chairman, 9 East 40th St., New York 18, N.Y.
Warm personal wishes and the hope that you may again visit New York
in the near future.
Faithfully,
estrangement and rededication
189
Robert Gulick94
From Gulick’s next letter, we know that Locke did write and send
the message as requested: “My dear Dr. Locke: I was in Washington
last night and I am attempting to write this note on the return train. I
tried a number of times to reach you by telephone. It was good of you
to send the message for the Wilson meeting which, by the way, was a
great success.”95
Gulick’s letter to Locke ended on a somber note. He wrote about
the activities of a splinter Bahá’í group in New York that called itself
the New History Society, and its leader Mirza Ahmad Sohrab: “The
New History outfit is planning a centennial pageant. By hook or crook
they have got together a more or less imposing advisory committee,
a number of whose members know nothing of Ahmad’s seamy past
or unscrupulous methods. I note the name of William Pickens of the
NAACP on the list. Do you know him and could you disillusion him
about Ahmad Sohrab?”96
Invitation from Shoghi Effendi: Meanwhile, Shoghi Effendi had not
forgotten about Locke, either. On 17 January 1944, he sent this Western
Union cablegram to Locke: “would greatly appreciate article
from your pen on any aspect of faith for centenary issue baha’i
world volume nine loving greetings shoghi rabbani.”97 The
fact that Shoghi Effendi personally solicited this essay from Locke
attests to the high regard the Guardian continued to have for him.
Locke received a follow-up letter, dated 1 February 1944, from the
National Spiritual Assembly. The secretary Horace Holley wrote: “We
are delighted to learn that the Guardian has cabled you asking for an
article to use in Volume 9 of the bahá’í world.” After clarifying which
committee would be handling the editorial work, Holley concludes his
letter: “The Guardian is being notified of your acceptance.”98 Shortly
after, on February 3, Mabel Paine, secretary on behalf of The Bahá’í
World Editorial Committee, stated: “We . . . would be glad to have your
article sent to us within two weeks, but if this would prove difficult
for you we can set March 1 as a deadline.”99 From a handwritten note
dated 4 March 1944, we know that Locke did meet the deadline. But, in
his haste to submit his manuscript on time, he had neglected to give it
a title: “Dear Dr. Locke: Could you send us a title for your article? I’m
190
alain locke: faith & philosophy
sure your title would be better than one we might invent.”100 In what
appears to be Locke’s own writing on Paine’s note, a provisional title
is written: “The Lessons of World Crisis.” This title later was revised
as “Lessons in World Crisis.”
Moral Imperatives for World Order: As mentioned above, on Wednesday evening, June 21, Locke spoke on “The Moral Imperatives for
World Order” at the Institute of International Relations in Mills College,
Oakland.101 Based on rough notes published as an informative abstract,
Locke began by saying that realism and idealism should be combined
to achieve a world order. While existing loyalties were necessary and
served to unite groups of people, such loyalties were limited in scope
and “hopelessly inadequate as a foundation for a larger society.”
Traditionally, these foundational loyalties concerned nation, race, and
religion. These larger loyalties, however, became seeds of conflict and
division, even though such loyalties were originally meant to bring
people together. The present world crisis (that is, World War II), Locke
argued, demands a more comprehensive framework.
One way of giving up a limited loyalty is to “find a way to transform or enlarge it.” National sovereignty, for instance, is purely arbitrary, even though historically grounded. If we are to resolve conflicts
that flare up when nationalisms collide, “we must work for enlargement
of all our loyalties.” This is all part of an ongoing process of social
evolution by progressive enlargement of values that advances in stages
throughout human history. Racial solidarity must not assert itself over
others as superior, but as part of a confraternity, where parity of races
and cultures becomes the new ideal. As a methodology for understanding and resolving conflicting religious truth-claims, Locke applies the
critical relativism he had proposed in his philosophical essays as a
viable strategy:
We must in the third place consider religion as having many ways leading
to salvation. The idea that there is only one true way of salvation with all
other ways leading to damnation is a tragic limitation to Christianity, which
professes the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. How foolish in
the eyes of foreigners are our competitive blind, sectarian missionaries! If the
Confucian expression of a Commandment means the same as the Christian
expression, then it is the truth also and should so be recognized. It is in this
way alone that Christianity or any other enlightened religion can vindicate
its claims to Universality; and so bring about moral and spiritual brother-
estrangement and rededication
191
hood.102
‑
Locke concluded his talk by recapitulating his thesis: “The moral
imperatives of a new world order are an internationally limited idea
of national sovereignty, a non-monopolistic and culturally tolerant
concept of race and religious loyalties freed of sectarian bigotry.”103
Leader in Adult Education: In 1946, Locke was elected president of
the American Association for Adult Education for the 1946-1947 term,
as the first black president of a predominantly white institution. Since
more and more of his time would soon be taken as a national educational leader, Locke could hardly have been expected to devote much
time to other commitments, including Bahá’í activities. As before,
Locke’s name appears on the annual Washington, D.C. Bahá’í membership list for 1945.104
His relative unavailability notwithstanding, Locke still found time
to contribute something significant to further the interests of the Bahá’í
Faith. His primary Bahá’í contributions would be at the international
level. In faithful response to Shoghi Effendi’s request, Locke’s final
Bahá’í essay, “Lessons in World Crisis” was published in The Bahá’í
World for 1940-1944.105
University of Wisconsin: During the 1945-1946 academic year, Locke
was a visiting professor at the University of Wisconsin. One of Locke’s
former students at Wisconsin, Beth Singer, described her professor as
follows: “Locke was a quiet, extremely scholarly, and well organized
lecturer; I do not recall his speaking from notes.”106 After mentioning the fact that Locke was a Bahá’í, Singer recalls that “Dr. Locke
seemed somehow aloof, and my friends and I were pretty much in awe
of him.”107
Of his experience there, Locke, in a letter dated 8 March 1946 to
his long-time friend Horace Kallen, wrote: “And I am delighted to
tell you that things continue to go well out here at Madison. . . . The
contrast both in student reaction, colleague’s [sic] friendliness, and of
course, administrative attitude has been damning in Howard’s disfavor.”108 As to his teaching responsibilities, Locke states: “Ironically I
am having the best philosophical time of my life, and it may rejuvenate
my mind; here’s hoping.”109
Champion of Democracy (1946): In constant demand as a public
192
alain locke: faith & philosophy
speaker, Locke’s lecture schedule was quite busy. Locke’s talks and
lectures continued to focus on the full realization of the founding principles of democracy in America.
During “Religious Emphasis Week,” on 13 February 1946, Locke
gave a presentation on the topic, “Comparative Cultures”—which was
really more of a talk on “Comparative Religions”—in University of
Wisconsin Memorial Union. The newspaper story “Dr. Locke Pleads
for World Culture” quotes Locke as saying: “We are fast approaching
a stage in which culture will have to be international. . . . This culture
must have courtesy and reciprocity and must be aided by religious tolerance. . . . And in order to have tolerance, we must have every person
intelligently aware of the common denominators of basic ideas and
basic moral issues. That is necessary for basic unity.”110 The article
closes with Locke citing several religious axioms.111
On the occasion of Negro History Week, 20 February 1946, Locke
was invited to speak on “The Cultural Contributions of the Negro”
at Union Theatre, presumably on campus. On 24 February 1946,
Locke spoke at the Harmon Portrait Exhibit of Distinguished Negro
Americans, Chicago Historical Society. These speaking appearances
continued apace throughout the year. Of particular note is his commencement address, “On Becoming World Citizens,” delivered on 28
May 1946 at the Thirty-Fifth Annual Commencement, Wisconsin High
School of the University of Wisconsin.112
Locke’s involvement in the arts was extensive. He served on
the advisory board for Princeton Group Arts. On 4 October 1946,
at the First Annual Conference of the African Academy of Arts and
Research in New York, Locke chaired the session on “Education and
Culture.” On 29 November 1946, Locke spoke on “New Outlook in
Adult Education,” at the Thirty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the National
Council of Teachers of English in Atlantic City, New Jersey. In this
frenzy of speaking engagements, Locke still found time to give to the
Bahá’í community.
Invitation to Speak at Green Acre: Of course, Locke’s name appears on
the “Bahá’í Membership List, Washington, D.C. Electoral District for
1946 State and Province Elections (Corrected List).”113 But, there are
other positive indications that Locke may have been on his way back
to an active Bahá’í life. On 3 February 1946, Locke was invited to give
a course on “The Negro in American Life” at the Green Acre Bahá’í
estrangement and rededication
193
Summer School during the week of July 15. The alternative of any
week of Locke’s choice between July 1 and August 31, was offered as
well.114 The organizers were clearly earnest in trying to secure Locke’s
acceptance.115 His non-involvement with the Washington Bahá’í community notwithstanding, Locke was still sought after by Bahá’ís, from
Shoghi Effendi in Haifa to New York, to Rhode Island, and to Maine.
“Democracy in Human Relations”: In thematic symmetry with his
secular lectures on democracy and race relations, another bright
moment in Locke’s life as a Bahá’í took place in March or April 1946
during a visit to Rhode Island, where he lectured on “Democracy in
Human Relations” at the Rhode Island School of Design. This event
was jointly sponsored by Negro College Club and the Bahá’ís of
Providence.116 Locke’s lecture was reported on as follows:
When Dr. Alain Locke was scheduled as a speaker for the Rhode Island
School of Design’s exhibition of Negro art, the Negro College Club and
the Providence Bahá’ís held a joint meeting for which Dr. Locke talked on
“Democracy in Human Relations” and spoke of being a Bahá’í. There were
twenty non-Bahá’ís present in spite of bad weather. His talk was reported and
the next Sunday’s program was announced in both the Urban League Bulletin
and the Providence Chronicle. As a result of this unsolicited publicity, the
Sunday meeting for Mr. George Goodman, a Negro Bahá’í from Hartford,
Connecticut, had a record attendance.117
Here was another public event at which Locke explicitly identified
himself as a Bahá’í, as Louis Gregory had encouraged him to do all
along. Given his firm belief in the efficacy of improving race relations
through culture, how could Locke pass up an opportunity to speak at an
exhibition of Negro art, especially in such a venue as the Rhode Island
School of Design?
Locke was ever mindful of his mortality, especially because of his
heart condition. In a letter dated 25 December 1946 to Cornelia Chapin,
Locke made reference to his plans for depositing his papers and art
collection at Howard University.118 Perhaps this partly accounts for his
bursts of activity, for each year could very well be his last.
Cynical View of the White Man (1947): World War II ended, and so
Locke was no longer needed as a champion of democracy—much like
when his role as a Bahá’í race leader came to an end when the raceamity initiatives went into decline in 1936. Although he had a change
of venues that enriched his professional experience, tensions between
194
alain locke: faith & philosophy
idealism and realism saw realism (or perhaps cynicism) briefly take the
upper hand.
In a letter dated 14 August 1947, Kallen wrote to Locke: “And I
mean to continue in this spinozan affirmation of life till the day I die,
counting you as one of the dear friends beside me, fighting the daily
fight for freedom that never ends.”119 Locke did not share Kallen’s
optimism. In an unpublished note dated 26 March 1947, he wrote: “The
best argument against there being a God is the white man who says God
made him.”120 This could be interpreted as a negative affirmation of
his faith. The only Bahá’í information we have on Locke during this
year is, as usual, the membership list. His name is duly listed on the
“D.C. Bahá’í Membership List, D.C. Electoral District for 1947 State
and Province Elections.”121
New School for Social Research: On 14 March 1946, Horace Kallen
extended Locke an invitation: “By vote of the Graduate Faculty of
Political and Social Science [New School for Social Research], I have
been authorized to invite you to serve as Visiting Professor in the
Graduate Faculty in the Department of Philosophy and Psychology for
the Spring term 1947.”122 The courses Kallen encouraged Locke to
teach were “an open course in Social Philosophy, with special reference
to minority problems, a graduate course in The Philosophy of the Arts,
and a seminar in the Theory of Value.”123 In a previous letter, Kallen
said that “the salary would be from about $2,000 to $2500.”124
Private Disclosures (1948-1949): From 1948-1952, Locke taught concurrently at both the City College of New York and Howard University.
Harlem was such a powerful cultural magnet that it would draw Locke
to it practically every weekend. Indeed, he would typically leave for
New York after fulfilling his teaching responsibilities at Howard, and
this was his habit during each academic year. It is obvious that Locke
was simply unavailable to his local Bahá’í community most weekends
and summers. His time was now more constrained than ever, notwithstanding his growing disinclination to remain an active Bahá’í.
However there was another, far more personal, issue that must be factored into an analysis of Locke’s relationship to the Bahá’í Faith.
As with some previous years—what one might call “gaps” in the
narrative—the years 1948-1949 are absolute ciphers in Locke’s Bahá’í
life. Apart from membership lists, there are no records of Locke having
estrangement and rededication
195
had any meaningful connection with the Bahá’í community during
this period of time. Again, as usual, Locke remained on the “Bahá’í
Membership List: 1948 State Election, Washington, D.C. Electoral
District.”125 The next year would be the same: Locke is a “paper”
Bahá’í, appearing on list of Bahá’í eligible voters, 6 April 1949126
as well as on the “Bahá’í Membership List: 1949 State Election,
Washington, D.C. Electoral District.”127
Locke publicly maintained a Christian paradigm of religion and
yet, while never openly espousing his Bahá’í affiliation except on rare
occasions, had moved a considerable distance away from orthodox
Christian ideas. On a pensive Christmas day, Locke wrote: “I am sorry,
but all my mind and temperament allow me for prayer is a Hail to the
Source of Life and a bow to the Inscrutable.”128 This did not mean that
Locke’s religious beliefs were diffuse or without form. Although the
depth of his knowledge of the Bahá’í teachings is difficult to assess, the
idea of “the Inscrutable” as God is far closer to the Bahá’í concept of
God as “the Unknowable” than is the Christian “heavenly Father.” One
must also remember that Locke knew that he could die at any time. In
fact, he was in a twilight period, close to the end of his life.
Locke was planning to write an autobiography, evidently at the
suggestion of friends and admirers. In a note dated 1 October 1949 and
titled, “Auto-Biog,” Locke jotted down this reminder: “Mrs. Isaacs:
You must write your memoirs.” This is direct evidence that individuals
close to Locke urged him to write his autobiography for posterity. And
that was a good idea. But the problem with an autobiography is that,
to be authentic, it would have to reveal some intimate details of the
author’s personal life.
“Achilles Heel of Homosexuality”: It is well known that Alain Locke
was homosexual. Leonard Harris refers to this as an “open secret.”129
While direct evidence from Locke himself is scarce, an important selfdisclosure is found in an archival note dated 1 October 1949, superscripted “Auto-Biog.” According to Harris’s transcription of it, Locke
wrote: “Three minorities—Had I been born in ancient Greece I would
have escaped the first [homophobia]; In Europe, I would have been
spared the second [racism]; In Japan I would have been above rather
than below average [in height].”130
Searching the Alain Locke Papers at Howard University in June
2000, I encountered this same note. Harris’s reading is entirely accu-
196
alain locke: faith & philosophy
rate. However, some marginalia should be considered. Above the word
“escaped,” Locke wrote “the ________ of,” which might have meant,
“the stigma of” homosexuality. Moreover, over the line “the first, In
Europe, I,” Locke inserted: “the weight + [illegible] of inferiority”—
again, indicating racism. Locke added: “This I sensed intuitively soon
early years.”131 That a stigma attached to being homosexual was simply
a social fact then (and still is today, although to a far lesser degree). His
direct juxtaposition of the first two stigmas shows that Locke viewed
homophobia in much the same constructivist terms as he saw racism: as
an equivalent social construct, and equally reprehensible.
In interpreting this autobiographical text, one cannot draw the
conclusion that Locke himself regarded his sexual orientation as inherently evil or something to be ashamed of. But it did conflict with Bahá’í
values as well as with the social norms of the time. There was never a
reconciliation between Locke’s homosexual private life and his Bahá’í
identity. The two stood in unresolved tension, necessarily compartmentalized and insulated from one another. Locke’s homosexuality
may have accounted for some of the considerable lapses in his active
involvement as a Bahá’í.
That Locke exercised care in keeping his homosexuality discreet
is one thing. That archivists and historians have done so as well raises
fundamental academic concerns. According to Leonard Harris, Michael
R. Winston, former head of the Moorland-Spingarn Library, “removed
from scholarly access letters that explicitly discussed or alluded to
Locke’s sexual life.”132 Winston “told a curator, on her first day of
work, to remove from the Locke papers all letters that discussed or
alluded to homosexuality and give them to him.”133 Harris adds:
“It is rumored that such letters were progressively returned to the
archives.”134 Whatever the case, I discovered another autobiographical note that directly addresses the issue of Locke’s homosexuality—a
document that appears to have eluded scholars until now. Dated 10 June
1948, Locke wrote:
My wise and loving Mother dipped me as a very young child in the magic
waters of cold cynicism and haughty distrust and disdain of public opinion
and this with satisfaction of an almost [illegible] child. However the all too
vulnerable/invulnerable Achilles heel of homosexuality— [reverse of page]
which she may have suspected was there, both for her sake and [for] my own
safety, I kept in an armoured shell [?] of reserve and haughty caution. I realize
that to bask in the sunshine of public favor, I would have to bathe in the dangerous fatal pool of publicity—.135
estrangement and rededication
197
Disdain of public opinion notwithstanding, the risk of social stigma
is that it can ignite adverse publicity and scandalize its victim. Thus
we may take Locke’s last statement: “the fatal pool of publicity,” on
its face. Locke was, after all, a public intellectual. To have openly
disclosed his orientation would have ruined his career. Locke could
scarcely afford to risk such adverse publicity. Harris makes this point
quite clear:
Locke’s choice of veiling during and prior to the [Harlem] renaissance was one
among several reasonable options in a homophobic and racist world. Locke’s
mother once advised him to be careful because the “vice control,” Howard
University’s administration, fired Montgomery Gregory from Howard’s
theatre teaching staff because he was seen leaving a “lurid” establishment
frequented by homosexuals. Arguably, the lesson was not lost on Locke: veil
or lose a complete intellectual and social world, not to mention the possibility
of torture, lynching, or death.136
Although today he enjoys a certain iconic notoriety in the gay
community, the question is open as to whether Locke wished to be
remembered and valued in this way. Locke certainly did not want his
private sex life to be made public during his lifetime. Perhaps the more
interesting and controversial question is whether today, some fifty
years later, Locke would have preferred to “unveil” himself or to keep
his sexual life private.
Even so, it is reasonable to assume from the foregoing passage that
Locke regarded his sexual orientation, at the time at least, as a social
liability that could all too easily burst into negative publicity. Nor is it
dogmatic to say that Locke’s homosexuality did not accord with Bahá’í
principles of morality. As a lifestyle, homosexuality stands in conflict
with received Bahá’í values, both then and now. Sexual activity, by
Bahá’í standards, is forbidden outside of marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual.137
Bahá’í law, in terms of the moral standards it embodies and mental
discipline it inculcates, has however been promulgated and applied
gradually. This was certainly the case in terms of the American Bahá’í
community, of which Locke was a prominent member. Precisely how
much Locke knew about Bahá’í standards of sexual conduct is far from
clear. It certainly would be anachronistic to adduce later official pronouncements on the issue to characterize what would have been considered normative within the Bahá’í community sixty or seventy years
198
alain locke: faith & philosophy
ago.138 In any case, Locke almost certainly never discussed or hinted
at his sexual orientation in his personal interactions with Bahá’ís—and
not with many others either. Thus Locke’s homosexuality would go to
his grave as a well-kept but “open” secret.
Jackson Armstrong-Ingram (1954-2004) has offered this interpretation of Locke’s autobiographical statement:
Locke’s use of classical imagery here is interesting particularly as he has
stated that in the ancient world his homosexuality would not have relegated
him to a ‘minority’ clearly indicating (with the following race reference also)
that he regards any “minority” status he occupies as socially constructed not
inherent in him. He asserts his independence from, even disdain for, the opinions of the modern world and equates his homosexuality with Achilles’ heel.
Yet it is not simply a point of weakness in an otherwise invulnerable body, like
Achilles’. His homosexuality is his “vulnerable/invulnerable” point. It has
been a source of both risk AND strength in dealing with the world.139
Armstrong-Ingram adds that Locke’s autobiographical note “suggests a strongly positive attitude toward his sexuality.” Either way,
Locke’s orientation is simply a fact of his life, a facet of his personality
that history ought not to obscure. The problem for the biographer is to
assess how important this fact of Locke’s homosexuality is. To what
extent does it serve as a key to interpreting Locke’s thought? Surely,
Locke’s homosexuality ought not diminish his greatness, whether as a
“race man” or as a Bahá’í. For some, of course, Locke’s homosexuality
is an indispensable heuristic in properly understanding and appreciating
his universalism.
Consonant with this interpretation is Harris’s estimate: “How is
it possible to honor Locke, that is, exalt him because of his intrinsic
qualities, virtues of character—his courage? How can we love and
respect him as an aesthete, friend, philosopher, pragmatist, American,
African American, and homosexual?”140 Harris answers this rhetorical
question by saying: “One way it is possible, I think, to progressively
surmount the vagaries of prejudice is through philosophies born of
struggle to overcome oppression.”141 That is, we can best honor Locke
by carrying forward his philosophy.
Louis Gregory’s Appeal to Locke: For three years in a row, it appears
that Locke had practically vanished from the sight of Bahá’ís. Locke
was an “isolated believer” because he had isolated himself.
estrangement and rededication
199
Whether fully active in the Bahá’í community or inactive, Locke
had never fully identified himself publicly—nationally—with the
Bahá’í Faith. This is why Louis Gregory wrote Locke—with an appeal
to accept a role as a public Bahá’í, to become a nationally known adherent, and to use his fame and prestige for that purpose:
Phone Kittery 1009-M
Louis G. Gregory
Little Akka
Eliot, Maine
6 April 1949
Dr. Alaine [sic] Locke
Howard University
Washington D.C.
My well beloved Brother:
My thoughts which have followed with appreciation and admiration your
career for well nigh forty years are now intimately drawn to you by two notations, one of which is current: The Bahá’í News contains, among questions,
the following: “What eminent Negro Bahá’í visited and wrote about Haifa?”
The other is the dedication to me of that highly prized volume, “The Story of
Philosophy,” which follows: “To my dear friend and brother, Louis Gregory,
with Bahá’í love. —Alaine [sic] Locke / Nov. 10, 1928.”
Although your Bahá’í spirit has been admirably shown by so many traits
and activities, yet I have the deepest longing that you will see the wisdom of
wholly identifying yourself with the Faith, thereby increasing both your joys
and usefulness, perhaps twenty-fold.
All the great events happening in a world-wide regeneration will take a
longer time. But both are the promises of God Who alone knows His whole
creation and by the appearance of His Manifestation [Bahá’u’lláh] makes His
Plan known.
How I long to talk with you, but after forty years my travels are well nigh
over. I am nearly 75. In my eagerness to share the knowledge discovered, I
have been through all the States save the Dakotas and into ten other countries
in two Hemispheres. Mrs. Gregory likewise through her knowledge of foreign
tongues has carried the Message to various European countries. Jim crow
cars, busses, poverty, hardships, privations, calumnies have been our lot, all
of which by [missing rest of letter].
[On p. 1:] P.S. Another friend whom you will find very congenial is
a Persian, Mr. Ala’i. The secretary is Miss Hopper, 2220 20th St. Wash.
D.C.142
This is a particularly moving appeal. It reveals a great deal about
Gregory himself, and of his life of total dedication to the one value
200
alain locke: faith & philosophy
system that he hoped would bring healing to the races, religions, and
nations of the world.
A New Americanism (1950): In October 1994, Robert Stockman interviewed Elsie Austin (d. 2004), a prominent African American Bahá’í,
about Alain Locke. This is the substance of her personal memories of
Locke:
I finally was able to reach Elsie Austin on Friday night; she is a very busy
woman, at age 86 or so! She is the only living person I know of who knew
Alain Locke. Elsie is quite sure he was a Bahá’í, mostly because he went on
pilgrimage and wrote about it; something we already knew. She said he spoke
at many race unity conferences, which I knew already. Whether he left the
Faith later in his life she did not know. She said the [19]50s were a time when
there was relatively little commitment to race unity in the American Bahá’í
community, and consequently many Black Bahá’ís were discouraged.143
If “many Black Bahá’ís were discouraged” over the relative lack
of priority given to race relations within the Bahá’í community during
the 1950s, as Elsie Austin claims, then surely Alain Locke was among
them. Locke was one of 77 members of the Washington Bahá’í community in 1950, according to the “State or Electoral District Voting
List—1950: Washington—District of Columbia.”144 No other Bahá’í
records have been found of Locke’s Bahá’í activities for this year.
Whether due to health problems or other reasons, Locke’s general
level of activity seems to have suffered entropy. Locke’s speaking
engagements were considerably fewer than in previous years. On 4
May 1950, for instance, we know that Locke spoke in Andrew Rankin
Chapel on the Howard University campus, on the occasion of the
Initiation Ceremonies of the Alpha Delta Chapter of Pi Beta Lambda
Society. In the summer, Locke left for Salzburg, presumably for heart
treatments.145 Later that fall, he presided as chair of panel on “Literature
and Art” at the Washington Humanities Club on 14 November 1950, at
the Whittall Pavilion, Library of Congress. This is a markedly diminished level of activity overall.
What is most significant about this year is the title of a lecture
Locke gave at the November 8 meeting of the Philosophy Club, held in
the faculty lounge of Douglass Hall on the Howard University campus.
The meeting was sponsored by the Department of Philosophy. Locke
lectured on “Cultural Pluralism: A New Americanism.” In itself, this
estrangement and rededication
201
event was comparatively insignificant. Probably just a handful of students and faculty attended. But the title of this lecture seems to say it
all, expressing the very essence of Locke’s personal philosophy.
The Harlem Renaissance was history. Although this grand episode
had immortalized Locke’s name in the annals of American history, the
New Negro movement, of which he was the primary spokesman, was
now little more than an artifact, a cultural icon. Locke’s subsequent role
was that of a cultural pluralist. Locke opposed “pluralism” to “absolutism”—following the lead of American pragmatist philosophers,
from Charles Peirce onward. Kallen started the movement, largely as
a way to accommodate Judaism within American society, but Locke
gave voice to cultural pluralism in a slightly but significantly different fashion, applying it to the ethnic and racial diversity in America.
Cultural pluralism was thus an extension of Locke’s theory of values.
One could even go so far as to say that cultural pluralism was Locke’s
secular faith. “Cultural pluralism” was the secular counterpart of the
Bahá’í principle of “unity in diversity” which, in his Bahá’í World
essay, Locke called “unity through diversity”—a more dynamic way of
communicating the same principle. To call cultural pluralism “A New
Americanism” was another stroke of genius. And while the cultural
pluralist movement was more loosely configured, and never succeeded
in capturing the popular imagination, its essentials are still being kept
alive by American philosophers. To this day, cultural pluralism remains
“A New Americanism.”
Gregory’s Last Appeal to Locke: In the last year before his passing,
Louis Gregory tried one last time to encourage Locke to fully identify
himself with the Faith, and to lend his time, talent, and prestige to it.
Locke’s status as a Bahá’í remained as it had been for the past
decade or so: Alain Locke’s name appears on the “State or Electoral
District Voting List—1951: Washington—District of Columbia.”146
This is the last year for which a record of Locke’s membership in the
Washington, D.C. Bahá’í community exists. Some notable Bahá’ís
on that list include Elsie Austin, Jamshed Fozdar, and Charles Mason
Remey. There were 83 voters in the District. But, as with this and
similar Bahá’í voting lists, not everyone listed was an active Bahá’í.
(In fact, the number listed as “not voting” was 39, close to half of the
eligible members of that list.) Such was probably the case with Locke
at this time. Gregory had been painfully aware of this for years. In a
202
alain locke: faith & philosophy
letter dated 21 January 1951, he writes:
My noble Brother:
I turn with heart and mind with admiration to you for your great accomplishments and services to humanity; but especially as I recall your services to
the Plan of God to unite and guide a troubled world, my longing is, that you
identify yourself fully with it. May I ask that you go deeply, carefully, and
prayerfully into the Teachings and as never before, ask God about it through
the medium of prayer? It is too tremendous a reality to be grasped by mind
alone, however brilliant, but the Holy Spirit must illumine the heart, to make
one’s assurance doubly sure. As fine as your work has hitherto been, your
power to aid mankind will be increased a hundred fold. Spiritual joys are
unimaginable and indescribable. My most earnest hope is that you will see
clearly the way to unite with the Baha’is in either Washington or New York,
in the latter of which, I am told, you maintain a residence.
My discovery of the New Revelation harks back to 1908 in Washington
where I then lived. The sacrificial devotion of two southern white friends,
held my attention, until under their tutelage, I could make a very thorough
investigation of the great Truth. This in part consisted of a journey to the
Orient to meet ‘Abdu’l-Baha. Living in a city where great men abound, I yet
found Him greater than all others put together. Although over many years I
have abandoned so much of what are considered the wealth, honors and even
comforts of life to serve, yet now I feel that what I may have done for God, is
infinitesimally small in contrast to what He has done for me.
My hope is that you will also partake of this great favor. The outpouring
of the Spirit of God makes all things new, and creates immortality without
death. It may make us conscious of worlds beyond as clearly as of this world
of change.
If I can in any way serve you, please count me
Your willing servant
Louis G. Gregory147
Locke had little time to respond, for Louis Gregory passed away
on 30 July 1951. One might say that this was an important death-bed
wish for Gregory. There is evidence to suggest that Locke did, after all,
respond to Louis Gregory’s appeal in at least two significant ways: (1)
an article published in Ebony magazine; and (2) a Bahá’í “fireside” in
Toronto. One could say, perhaps, that Louis Gregory’s appeal was successful in the end.
Ebony Magazine (1952): Locke was approaching the end of his life, and
he probably knew it. Although at the height of his cognitive powers,
Locke’s heart condition was worsening. In a letter dated 30 June 1952,
Horace Kallen referred Locke to Dr. Joseph Wolffe of the Valley Forge
Heart Hospital and Research Institute.148 Locke would at last find a
estrangement and rededication
203
physician in whom he had absolute trust and confidence. Although he
had written at least three wills, indicative of Locke’s acute sense of
mortality is the fact that he established a scholarship fund in his name.
On 12 June, 1952, the Epsilon Chapter of Phi Beta Sigma held “The
First Annual Benefit of The Alain Locke Scholarship Fund.”
In a letter dated 24 June to Kallen, Locke refers to the commencement at Howard University that took place on May 13, which was
“certainly the most significant in all my forty [years] here.” The commencement speech was given by President Harry S. Truman, which
Locke praised as an “excellent civil rights speech.” Not the least
significant occurrence at this event was what Locke referred to as
“incidentally my official emeritus exit.” On May 14, the very next day,
Locke suffered another episode of heart trouble, which confined him to
his home in Washington, D.C.:
I came down with another recurrence of the heart trouble next day, with confinement to the apartment and constant medical attention since. Just out from
under to the extent of being able to do a few things other than trade complete
inaction for slowly reduced blood pressures and heart beats [sic]. The old
enemy has been in the saddle off and on since January first, which accounts
for my not having seen you.149
His heart trouble notwithstanding, Locke says that “the year has
been happy nevertheless in many ways.” That the students at Howard
University had “dedicated the class year book to me” must have been
personally rewarding. The dedication was as follows:
Through the years you have brought to the Negro youth of Howard University
the inspiration that can come only from a great and brilliant teacher . . .
Through your personal achievements in scholarship you have proved that
genius is sufficient to surmount all barriers of race and color. Because of your
eminence as a scholar, philosopher, and teacher, we . . . proudly dedicate this
. . . effort to you.150
Although this was his official exit from Howard, Locke states his
intention to stay for a little longer: “I actually will hang on the rolls
for another year but nominally in order to qualify for social security
benefits, which it seems I’ll need if I am to have additional expenses
of continuous medical care.” As though he had forgotten what he had
previously written, Locke goes into more detail about his medical
condition in a subsequent letter to Kallen. This time, the letter, dated
204
alain locke: faith & philosophy
30 July 1952, was written from Fort Valley Heart Hospital in Fairview
Village, Pennsylvania:
Just after commencement, my condition became near critical, and nothing
several physicians could do would bring my pulse rate much below 130. I
was beginning to have to sleep sitting up in a chair, and the least effort was
an ordeal. Of course, my main anxiety, since I had always anticipated a quick
end with a heart attack, was how on retirement income to afford a wheel chair
and attendant.151
Locke also discloses that he had suffered from hyperthyroidism.
His attending physician Dr. Wolffe managed to cut his thyroid activity and metabolic rate nearly in half and bring his heart rate down to
around 90 and occasionally lower. The good doctor inspired such optimism, such a “psychological transformation” in Locke that he “calmly
and confidently” contemplated “ten or so years or so of leisurely
writing, lecturing and travel.”
Fireside in Toronto: Louis Gregory’s last letter, combined with his
failing health, must have had an impact on Locke’s thinking as a Bahá’í.
Locke’s last-known speaking engagement at a Bahá’í-sponsored event
came to light when Michael Rochester, former member of the National
Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Canada and Professor Emeritus of
Mathematical Physics at Memorial University of Newfoundland, sent
me the following e-mail message:
Dear Christopher Buck,
I have just scanned your article on Alain Locke in the just-arrived Bahá’í
Studies Review v. 10, and look forward to reading it more thoroughly. But
I noticed, and was intrigued by, your description of his withdrawal, at least
for a decade or so in the latter part of his life, from “active involvement in”
the Bahá’í community, and his having later “publicly identified himself as a
Bahá’í . . . as late as 1952.”
A personal recollection of Alain Locke near the end of his life may be
of interest to you.
Having been strongly attracted to the Bahá’í teachings in November
1951, as a student at the University of Toronto, I vividly remember attending a fireside held in January or February 1952, in a home in what was then
a suburb of Toronto, at which Alain Locke was the speaker. Unfortunately
Elizabeth Manser (later my wife) who organized that fireside, no longer
remembers how Dr. Locke came to be in Toronto, to be invited to the fireside
or the title of his talk. His persona made a great impression on me, not only
because what I understood of the Bahá’í stand on the oneness of the human
race and the importance of efforts to free ourselves from racial prejudice
estrangement and rededication
205
was immensely attractive to me, but because his modest demeanour, and
the wisdom and thoughtfulness with which he expressed himself, were so
consonant with what I had already come to appreciate in and expect from
the best Bahá’í speakers. He certainly clearly identified himself—indeed was
introduced—as a Bahá’í to all of us there, Bahá’ís and seekers.
I spoke with him briefly after his talk, but sadly no memory now remains
of what we talked about. I do remember how excited I was, a few months
later, to find an article by him in a Random House anthology of American
Negro literature. It was not until a few years later (after his death), when my
wife and I acquired all the earlier Bahá’í World volumes, that I discovered
and relished his articles there. I have always felt privileged to have met and
talked with this great but too-little-remembered figure in American intellectual history, this wise and fine Bahá’í.
With best wishes,
Michael Rochester152
A Bahá’í fireside is an informational meeting intended to introduce
new people to the Bahá’í teachings. Elizabeth distinctly remembers
that Locke spoke at her fireside on Sunday, 23 March 1952, because it
was her birthday. From 1949-1953, Elizabeth, together with her mother
Jessie Harkness Manser, hosted very successful firesides in their apartment in Forest Hill Village, where they had lived since 1940. Neither
Michael nor Elizabeth can recall just how she and her mother discovered that Locke was (or would be) in Canada, or how they contacted
Locke to invite him to give that fireside. As late as 1952, therefore, we
have evidence that Locke continued to identify himself as a Bahá’í.
Almost all of Locke’s Bahá’í speaking engagements that we have
been able to chronicle were highly visible, public events. In this case,
Locke spoke at a private fireside—one that was by invitation only
and, most likely, not publicized. This episode shows that Locke was
willing to participate in private as well as public Bahá’í events and may
suggest that he did this on other occasions that we have no record of.
Perhaps the greatest significance this new information holds is that it
dispels the notion held by some authorities that late in life Locke was
a “freethinker,” uncommitted to any religion. It can now be argued,
based on this fresh evidence, that Locke remained a Bahá’í until the end
of his life.
Article in Ebony Magazine: Locke certainly had ample opportunity in
his professional life to refer to his religious affiliation. So far as we
know, he never did so. When Locke did publicly identify himself as a
Bahá’í, it was in the context of Bahá’í-sponsored events. Only a relatively few people were present to hear Locke make such a testimonials
206
alain locke: faith & philosophy
of faith. So that type of public statement was a relatively “safe” one to
make.
Locke’s four essays published in several volumes of The Bahá’í
World were also public declarations of his faith as a Bahá’í. The Bahá’í
World was a public record and an international publication. However,
this was a public association—not necessarily full identification—with
the Bahá’í Faith. The competent reader would presume that Locke was
writing as a Bahá’í, but it was not absolutely clear.
While Locke opted for the indirect method of teaching, Bahá’ís
were at liberty to capitalize on Locke’s prestige both before and after
his death in 1954. In October 1952, Ebony magazine published an
article, “Bahá’í Faith: Only church in world that does not discriminate.”153 On the first page of the article, it featured a photograph of
Alain Locke alongside that of Robert Abbott, publisher of the Chicago
Defender. The caption under Abbott states that he was the most famous
African American Bahá’í. The caption beneath Locke’s photograph,
interestingly enough, reads: “Alain Locke, Howard professor, joined
movement in 1915, wrote for the Baha’i Magazine.” Especially
because he kept a copy of this article on file, the presumption must be
that Locke consented to the use of his photograph in the article. (Robert
Abbott had died years earlier.)
At last, the name and fame of Alain Locke was publicly identified with the Bahá’í Faith. This would have made Louis Gregory very
happy indeed. This, combined with the Ebony article itself and the
national exposure that went along with it, signals Locke’s journey from
estrangement to reconciliation with his Bahá’í community and personal
identification with the Bahá’í Faith.
Locke’s Last Active Year (1953): In a letter dated 18 February 1953 to
Horace Kallen, Locke reports a clean bill of health: “A recent check up
with Dr. Wolfee [sic] was favorable.”154 That prognosis would not be
favorable for long. That would be Locke’s last active year as a public
intellectual.
Locke was awarded an Honorary Degree of Doctor of Humane
Letters upon his retirement on 5 June 1953. In his acceptance speech,
which was also his parting speech, Locke referred to “these forty-one
years of close professional and personal association.” Reflecting on a
family tradition of education practiced by his parents and his grandfather Ishmael Locke, Locke noted that “teaching is a family calling.”
estrangement and rededication
207
Locke said:
In coming to Howard in 1912, I was fortunate, I think, in bringing a philosophy
of the market place not of the cloister. For, however much a luxury philosophy
may be in our general American culture, for a minority situation and a trained
minority leadership, it is a crucial necessity. This, because free, independent
and unimposed thinking is the root source of all other emancipations. . . . A
minority is only safe and sound in terms of its social intelligence.”155
In reference to the pending Supreme Court case, Brown v. Board
of Education, Topeka, Kansas (decided in 1954), Locke commented
that, “now that educational and other forms of official segregation
are facing the Supreme Court[,] what we hope is their final judicial
doomsday, that such special emphasis can and should lapse along with
the situations of enforced separatism, and then be merged in one overall
program of progressive and democratic social education.”156 Although
Locke did not live to see it, this was his prediction: “Even should this
crucial legal turning point be further postponed, it is only too evident
that in American race relations a new age of progressive integration is
well upon us.”157
In reflecting on his involvement in the New Negro movement, and
what it represented, Locke said:
When I began my teaching career, forty years back, in matters racial a sorry
age of appeal and appeasement was just coming to an end. There was slowly
beginning the era of the New Negro, in which it was a joy and privilege to
participate. That phase we can now see as an important and inevitable age of
transition, although at the time it seemed decidedly millennial. It was an age
of racialist self-assertion and protest, involving much needed recovery of self
respect and compensative self reliance. Fortunately, with a few exceptions
like Garveyism, this inevitable period of self-assertion did not lead the Negro
into a dead end of racial chauvinism and an impasse of voluntary separatism.”158
He then quoted a passage from his immortal manifesto in The New
Negro, prefacing the citation: “For the record, may I now quote how it
seemed from a philosopher’s viewpoint twenty-seven years ago.” That
passage states, in part:
The Negro mind reaches out as yet to nothing but American wants, American
ideas. But this forced attempt to build his Americanism on race values is a
unique social experiment, and its ultimate success is impossible except through
the fullest sharing of American cultures and institutions. . . . Democracy itself
208
alain locke: faith & philosophy
is obstructed and stagnated to the extent that any of its channels are closed. .
. . So the choice is not between one way for the Negro and another way for
the rest, but between American institutions frustrated on the one hand and
American ideals progressively fulfilled and realized on the other.”159
Despite his own criticism of the movement (described above as a
“unique social experiment”) some years ago, Locke could now look
back and appreciate, at aesthetic and social distance, “the logic of
the intervening social development.” He added: “In taking his case
and cause consistently on the basic values and ideals of the American
culture, the Negro strategy and tactic has been signally vindicated.”160
Locke himself was a prominent symbol of African American selfrespect, and he succeeded in gaining the respect of that segment of
white America that knew about him. Locke is now an American icon.
But instead of looking back, in his twilight years Locke looked
forward:
Somewhat swiftly and courageously, however, the strategies of protest and
racialist compensation must be changed over to new ones of ready collaboration and positive acceptance of common causes. As Dr. Bunche so forcefully
pointed out in his Phi Beta Kappa address here recently, we must stand ready
to liquidate promptly and cheerfully all our vested interests in a segregated
social order, and willingly renounce and reconstruct the separate church,
the separate school, and whatever else was once a justifiable countershield
against discrimination and ostracism. Nor should we assume the gradualism
which on the other side has drawn our constant and vehement criticism. If
the age of integration is on us,—and it seems to be, the time is now, without
hesitation or regret. We must now face a new era reasonably free from selfcontradiction, and in obvious harmony with the basic principles or which we
have so long appealed. Although a comparatively sudden change, and one of
course not fully established, this is the present challenge.161
Locke closed his speech with these moving words: “One who is old
must pause for a blinking moment, and then hasten to salute the fortunate generation that stands on the threshold of such new opportunities.
Nor is it envy that prompts a sobering reminder that these very fresh
enlargements of life bring reciprocally new and arduous responsibilities. It is good to have lived to see even this much realization of the
rich potentials of American democracy.”162 Throughout his life, Locke
presented the race problem as fundamentally a question of democracy.
Indeed, race is the litmus test of the integrity of any democracy.
In July, Locke moved to New York (Harlem), which was really
estrangement and rededication
209
his second home and his first love. According to critic Steve Watson,
Locke’s “wispy figure could be seen briskly strolling through Harlem
in perfectly tailored suits, with a tightly wound umbrella as his stick
(and in later years as a form of protection), delivering erudite pronouncements in high pitched rapid-fire sentences.”163
Centenary of Universal Religion: In advance preparation for the event,
Locke was invited to submit ideas for the “Centenary of Universal
Religion.”164 This was the commemoration of the hundredth anniversary of Bahá’u’lláh’s mystic experience of prophetic mission. In 1952,
he was sent a press release issued by Nina Matthisen, Secretary of the
Bahá’í Centenary News Service, announcing the special observance
on 16 October 1952. This international event was marked by a series
of four international conferences: Kampala, Uganda (February 1953);
Wilmette, Illinois (May 1953), Stockholm (July 1953); and New Delhi
(October 1953). The Bahá’í House of Worship was formally dedicated
at the Wilmette event. It is not known whether Locke contributed in any
way to this event. Furthermore, there is no record of his involvement
with the New York Bahá’í community at this late stage in his life.
Not Without Honor in His Own Country: Locke lived on 12 Grove
Street in New York. Not much is known of his activities at this time.
One can surmise that Locke’s heart condition was seriously deteriorating. He did review Ralph Barton Perry’s The Realms of Value165 and
published a couple of other minor pieces. While Locke himself had
hoped that his career as a scholar was not at an end, it was. Up until
the end, Locke had been working on a project that was ultimately left
unfinished. After his death, colleague Margaret Just Butcher published
The Negro in American Culture (1956).166 However, although based
on his materials, it was not a genuine reflection of Locke’s approach
to culture.
Bahá’í Prayers at Funeral: Locke died on 9 June 1954, in Mount
Sinai Hospital in New York City. According to one obituary (found
in the Alain Locke Papers!), Locke “died after a six-week illness.”
On June 11 at Bent’s Chapel, Brooklyn, Locke’s memorial was presided over by Channing Tobias, with cremation following at Fresh
Pond Crematory in Little Village, Long Island.167 Arthur Huff Fauset
assumed the responsibilities of making all the necessary arrangements.
210
alain locke: faith & philosophy
From a will that Locke wrote on 1 April 1943, it appears that Fauset
had a “half-interest” in Locke’s properties at 2324 North Nineteenth
Street, Philadelphia, as well as the apartment house on 1921 Diamond
Street and the house on 1611 Pine Street—all in Philadelphia. Fauset’s
address is given as 1611 Pine.168 The brief notice that appeared in the
Baha’i News169 states that: “Quotations from the Baha’i Writings and
Baha’i Prayers were read at Dr. Locke’s funeral.”
Orations in honor of Locke were given by William Stanley
Braithwaite, Ralph Bunche, C. Glenn Carrington, W. E. B. Du Bois,
Benjamin Karpman, Yervant Krikorian, William Stuart Nelson.170
“His contributions,” remarked Karpman, “go beyond race; they belong
to all humanity. . . . He had all but emancipated himself from the consciousness of color. . . . In his presence, one did not feel that he was
speaking to a Negro or to a particular human known as American, but
to an urbane cosmopolitan.” Of the difference he made in this world,
Karpman said of Locke that “his influence has penetrated millions of
human souls,” explaining that:
He gave the Negro an individuality to a greater degree than the race had ever
known before. He gave him reasons to dream, visions that could be attained;
he gave him a sense of belonging, a cause to struggle for. More than anyone
else, he contributed to removing from the Negro the stigma of inferiority
and gave him a social and human dignity as Emerson and Thoreau a century
before gave it to the American. He gave the Negro a consciousness of being
a part of mankind in general, a partner in man’s creative progress. Many
a Negro today walks with a straighter gait, holding his head high in any
company, because of Alain Locke.171
After Locke’s death, the Alain Locke Memorial Committee was
formed and William S. Braithwaite was authorized to write an official
biography on Locke. Evidently, this biography never came to fruition. In an undated letter to Fauset, chair of the Alain Locke Memorial
Committee, Horace Kallen wrote: “I cannot think of a writer better
fitted by his knowledge, sympathetic understanding and literary skill to
deal with this theme in its relation to the life-problems of the American
Negro in the material and spiritual economy of our country.” Kallen
added this claim to his tribute to Locke: “What Booker T. Washington
had been to the Negro and the American idea in the field of material
skills and material achievement, Alain Locke was in the field of the
spirit.”172
estrangement and rededication
211
What keener assessment of Locke’s contribution to American
history than these words written by Kallen on 19 November 1959: “I
believe that the role of Alain Locke in turning the cultural attitudes of
American Negroes in new and creative directions forms an important
part of the cultural history of the United States with ongoing consequences.”173
In 1955, Howard University received the estate of Alain Locke,
whose personal art collection of 365 pieces became the core of the
Gallery of Art’s classical African Art Collection. On 1 December 1973,
in the Alain Locke Symposium, sponsored by The Harvard Advocate,
Nathan Higgins explained Locke’s interest in African art, and why he
attached such great significance to it:
But Locke’s thinking had a special import and that was to serve the refinement
of Afro-American culture. We can now understand why African art as such
has a special meaning for Locke. Here, after all, was an art created out of the
religious and community experiences of a non-white people that exhibited
the discipline and purity of form that could be called classic. In every sense
African art demonstrated the intrinsic value that was possible to derive from
refined generalized experience. African art not only supported his theory,
but it represented the promise for Afro-American art. He did not expect that
Afro-American art should imitate African art; he did not expect that AfroAmerican art should imitate African form. But he hoped that the existence
of African art would suggest to the black Americans the possibilities of their
own expressions.174
Remaining at Howard University, the African Art Collection was a
philanthropic, far-sighted gift from Locke that augmented his legacy.
Conclusions: The fact that Locke was a Bahá’í was not well known in
the American Bahá’í community, which largely forgot about him after
his passing. Over the past five decades, Locke has been of far greater
importance outside the Bahá’í community than within it. This asymmetry of interest has also led to an information gap. Locke’s Bahá’í
identity was simply not recognized as a matter of historical fact. The
documentation provided in this study, therefore, will put to rest the
myth that Locke had never formally become a Bahá’í.
Proving Locke’s Bahá’í identity is one thing; reconstructing his
Bahá’í life is quite another. In so doing, one question that must be asked
was whether or not Locke fully identified himself with the Bahá’í Faith.
Apart from his Bahá’í essays, speeches and articles, Locke never once
212
alain locke: faith & philosophy
mentioned the Bahá’í Faith in any of his books, articles, or lectures, let
alone admit his affiliation with it. Because of his rather uneven relationship with the Washington, D.C. Bahá’í community, there is all the more
reason to investigate Locke’s Bahá’í life more deeply.
The most honest appraisal one can make is that Locke held to a
true belief in Bahá’í principles, was fully committed to its race-amity
agenda, and contributed several Bahá’í essays that were substantially
more than mere editorials. Moreover, Locke was particularly active and
effective at both national and international levels of the Bahá’í movement. For reasons that he did not disclose, Locke never testified to his
faith in his professional life. For reasons that he certainly did disclose,
Locke experienced a growing estrangement from the Washington, D.C.
Bahá’í community. At last, he disassociated himself from that local
community.
Yet, through high-level contacts, Locke maintained his Bahá’í
connections. He made several significant contributions to his religion
during this period of estrangement. Despite his estrangement, he had
a later reconciliation. The brightest moments in Locke’s public Bahá’í
life were three: (1) the first Race Amity Conference, in which Locke
presided as a session chair on 20 May 1921; (2) his presentation at the
Racial Amity Convention in Harlem, 10 December 1932; and (3) his
lecture, “Democracy in Human Relations” at the Rhode Island School
of Design in 1946.
Locke’s later “reconciliation” with the Faith resulted in his most
widely publicized and highly visible identification with it. This was the
October 1952 issue of Ebony magazine in which his photograph and the
caption beneath it clearly and publicly identified him as a Bahá’í. At
that point, nothing more could be asked of Locke, having openly and
effectively lent his prestige to the Faith that resonated most closely with
his philosophy of cultural pluralism.
Notes
1. For the list of members, see Morrison, To Move the World, p. 195.
2. Morrison, To Move the World, pp. 194-213.
3. Morrison, To Move the World, p. 213.
4. Locke to Mason, 29 February 1936, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-71,
Folder 9 (February-May 1936), pp. 1-2.
5. Harris, Philosophy of Alain Locke, pp. 8, 10.
6. Kallen, “Alain Locke and Cultural Pluralism,” p. 122.
estrangement and rededication
213
7. Harris, Philosophy of Alain Locke, p. 9.
8. Private memorandum, Alain Locke Papers (MSRC), cited by Winston,
“Locke, Alain LeRoy,” p. 402.
9. Winston, “Locke, Alain LeRoy,” p. 404.
10. Harris, “Chronology,” The Philosophy of Alain Locke, p. 297.
11. Stephen G. Hall, “Locke, Alain (1885-1954),” W. E. B. Du Bois: An
Encyclopedia. Edited by Gerald Horne and Mary Young (Westport, Conn. and
London: Greenwood Press, 2001) p. 126.
12. Locke to Du Bois, 5 March 1935, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-26,
Folder 8 (Du Bois, W. E. B.).
13. Ibid.
14. Alain Locke, “Values and Imperatives,” in American Philosophy, Today and
Tomorrow, ed. Sidney Hook and Horace M. Kallen (New York: Lee Furman, 1935)
pp. 313-33. Reprint: Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1968. Leonard Harris
selected this essay to be the first in his magnificent anthology, The Philosophy of
Alain Locke, pp. 34-50.
15. Bahá’í Archives of Washington, D.C. Courtesy of Ms. Anita Chapman.
16. Ibid.
17. Until research for this book had begun in earnest, no scholar had produced
conclusive data on Locke’s formal acceptance of the Bahá’í Faith. Therefore a debt
of gratitude is owed to Roger Dahl, archivist at the U.S. Bahá’í National Archives
for bringing the definitive document to light.
18. Joseph F. Harley, III, secretary of the Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of
Washington, D.C. Harley to Locke, 27 August 1935, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC,
Box 164-176, Folder 13 (Bahá’í Faith). From the Washington, D.C. Bahá’í
Archives.
19. Morrison, To Move the World, p. 204.
20. Ibid., p. 205.
21. Bahá’í Archives of Washington, D.C. Courtesy of Ms. Anita Chapman.
22. Locke to Holley, 18 April 1935, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-36,
Folder 47 (Holley, Horace).
23. Robert Stockman, The Bahá’í Faith in America: Early Expansion, 1900-1912
(Oxford: George Ronald, 1995) p. 189.
24. Louise Boyle to Florence [Breed] Khan, 19 July 1935, NBA. Courtesy of
Roger Dahl, Archivist.
25. Louise Boyle to Florence [Breed] Khan, 28 August 1935, NBA. Courtesy of
Roger Dahl, Archivist.
26. Louise Boyle to Florence [Breed] Khan, 30 August 1935, NBA. Courtesy of
Roger Dahl, Archivist.
27. Ibid.
28. Louise Boyle to Florence [Breed] Khan, 9 Sept. 1935, NBA. Courtesy of
Roger Dahl, Archivist.
29. Morrison, To Move the World, p. 140. See Alain L. Locke, “Educator and
Publicist,” Star of the West, Vol. 22, no. 8 (November 1931) pp. 254-55. (Obituary
of George William Cook, 1855-1931). Mariam Haney had solicited this obituary.
Haney to Locke, 25 September 1931, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-33,
Folder 49 (“Haney, Mariam”).
30. Morrison, “To Move the World: Promoting Racial Amity, 1921-1927,” p. 16,
n. 30.
214
alain locke: faith & philosophy
31. Locke to Gregory, 6 June 1931, Louis Gregory Papers, NBA.
32. Morrison, To Move the World, pp. 148-49; 164; 182.
33. Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Washington, D.C., untitled report, 1935,
Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-176, Folder 13 (Bahá’í Faith).
34. Bahá’í Archives of Washington, D.C. Courtesy of Ms. Anita Chapman. See
also Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Washington, DC, untitled report, 1935.
35. Louise Boyle to Florence [Breed] Khan, 9 Sept. 1935, NBA. Courtesy of
Roger Dahl, Archivist.
36. Ibid.
37. Locke to Cobb, 10 December 1935, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-21,
Folder 16 (Cobb, Stanwood).
38. Official program, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-176, Folder 13
(Bahá’í Faith).
39. Louise Boyle to Florence [Breed] Khan, 7 Nov. 1935, NBA. Courtesy of
Roger Dahl, Archivist.
40. Ibid.
41. Ibid.
42. Locke to Mason, 5 May 1936, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-71,
Folder 9 (February-May 1936) p. 1.
43. Locke to Mason, 29 February 1936, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-71,
Folder 9 (February-May 1936).
44. Locke to Mason, 30 Mar. 1936, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-71,
Folder 9 (February-May 1936).
45. Locke to Mason, 22 April 1936, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-71,
Folder 9 (February-May 1936) pp. 1-2.
46. “List of Believers—January 22, 1936.” NBA. Courtesy of Roger Dahl,
Archivist.
47. Alain Locke, “The Orientation of Hope,” The Bahá’í World: A Biennial
International Record, Volume 5, 1932-1934 (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust,
1936) pp. 527-28. Reprint (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1980). Reprinted
again in Locke, The Philosophy of Alain Locke, ed. by Leonard Harris (1989) pp.
129-32. Harris’ reference on p. 129 n. should be emended to read, “Volume V,
1932-1934” (not “Volume IV, 1930-1932”). Original manuscript in Alain Locke
Papers, MSRC, Box 164-123, Folder 11 (“The Orientation of Hope.” 1934 [typescript]).
48. “Voting List—Washington Bahá’í Community—1937.” NBA. Courtesy of
Roger Dahl, Archivist.
49. “List of Recognized Believers of the Washington Bahá’í Community, as
approved by the Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the City of Washington, D.C.
January 1938.” NBA. Courtesy of Roger Dahl, Archivist.
50. Locke to Kallen, 15 April 1935, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-42,
Folder 15 (Kallen, Horace M.).
51 “List of Recognized Believers of Washington (D.C.) Bahá’í Community.”
NBA. Meeting annually from 1940 to 1968, these conferences were variously held
at the Jewish Theological Seminary, Columbia, Harvard, the American Philosophical Society, University of Chicago, and Loyola University.
52. “Next week the colored citizens of Chicago will have [the] unusual opportunity to further the progressive momentum of this New Deal aid to the Negro cause.
estrangement and rededication
215
The elections there involve the issue of the return to the only assured representation of the Negro in Congress of an experienced[,] loyal and efficient New Deal
congressman, Mr. Mitchell, and the sending to Washington of one of the staunchest
and best friends of the Negro cause that I have had the good fortune to know, T.
V. Smith, candidate for the post of Illinois Congressman at large.” Although these
two candidates were Democrats, Locke refers to himself, “Like you and other
independents,” making it clear that Locke was neither a registered Republican nor
Democrat.
53. In a letter dated 15 April 1935 to Horace Kallen, Locke wrote: “T. V. Smith is
a person for whom I have not only admiration but affection.” Online: http://www.
jtsa.edu/research/ratner/archives/jtsrec/rg_05.shtml. Archives: Records of the
Jewish Theological Seminary. See further: Fred Beuttler, Organizing an American
Conscience: The Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion, 1940-1968,
Doctoral Dissertation (University of Chicago, Department of History, 1995).
54. NBA. Courtesy of Roger Dahl, Archivist.
55. Louis G. Gregory and Curtis D. Kelsey, “Syllabus for Class in the Study
of Race Unity[,] Green Acre, Eliot, Maine. August 5-10,” Alain Locke Papers,
MSRC, Box 164-176, Folder 13 (Bahá’í Faith).
56. Louis G. Gregory and Curtis D. Kelsey, “Syllabus for Class in the Study of
Race Unity, p. 1.
57. Freedom: A Concert in Celebration of the 75th Anniversary of the Thirteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (1940). Compact‑disc. New
York: Bridge, 2002. This CD digitizes two monaural (not stereo) sound tape reels:
analog, 7 1/2 ips, 2 track, mono. ; 10 in. + 1 program ( 12 p.). Catalogued as recording AFS 6092-6095, Archive of Folk Song at the Library of Congress.
58. Alain Locke, “Spirituals,” in The Critical Temper of Alain Locke: A Selection
of His Essays on Art and Culture, ed. by Jeffrey C. Stewart (New York and
London: Garland, 1983) p. 126. On the compact disc recording issued by Bridge
Records, Locke’s lecture is eliminated entirely, except for his last sentence, “The
quartet will close with ‘Travelin’ Shoes” (Track 7). But Locke’s introduction,
“The Negro Spiritual,” is featured on Track Two (1:14). At least this commercial
release makes available Locke’s voice, so that one may get a sense of the tonality
of his lectures and what it was like to have witnessed his erudition and spiritual
vision.
59. A photograph of Mrs. Roosevelt speaking with Locke and Peter Pollack,
supervisor of community art centers of the Illinois Art Project is available on the
Smithsonian Archives of American Art web site, along with a facsimile of the
official program for the dedicatory dinner honoring “Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt”
herself. Facsimile of the official program for the dedicatory dinner honoring Mrs.
Franklin D. Roosevelt on 7 May 1941. From the papers of Peter Pollack. The
Smithsonian Archives of American Art. Online: http://www.archivesofamericanart.si.edu/exhibits/presidents/rooseveltfpollackhtm.htm. Accessed 11 August
2003.
60. Haney to Locke, 27 January 1941, MSRC, Box 164-33, Folder 49 (“Haney,
Mariam”).
61. NBA. Courtesy of Roger Dahl, Archivist.
62. Locke to Haney, 30 March 1941, MSRC, Box 164-33, Folder 49 (“Haney,
Mariam”).
216
alain locke: faith & philosophy
63. Alain Locke, “Pluralism and Intellectual Democracy.” In Conference on
Science, Philosophy and Religion, Second Symposium. New York: Conference on
Science, Philosophy and Religion, 1942. Reprint in Locke (1989) pp. 51-66.
64. According to Leonard Harris, the idea for this volume emerged from presentations at the American Council on Education Conference in Chicago the
previous year. Publication of this book was made possible by a subvention by the
Progressive Education Association. This anthology was international in scope,
promoting interracial and ethnic contacts through intercultural rapport. Correspondence between the two is archived as the “Bernhard Stern/Alain Locke Collection,
1931-1955” in the Manuscripts, Archives and Rare Books Division of the New
York Public Library (Sc MG 176‑ Box 1).
65. NBA. Courtesy of Roger Dahl, Archivist.
66. Alain Locke, Mordecai Johnson, Doxey Wilkerson, Leon Ransom, “Is There
a Basis for Spiritual Unity in the World Today?” Town Meeting: Bulletin of
America’s Town Meeting on the Air 8.5 (1 June 1942) pp. 3-12.
67. Johnson, “Is There a Basis for Spiritual Unity in the World Today?”, 4.
68. Ibid., pp. 6-7.
69. Ibid., p. 7.
70. Ibid., p. 17.
71. Ibid., p. 18.
72. News clipping, “Three Named to Music Unit Of Cultural Relations,”
Washington Herald, 18 January 1943, Moe Papers, American Philosophical
Society. My thanks to Robert S. Cox, Keeper of Manuscripts.
73. Alain Locke, “The Negro Group.” Group Relations and Group Antagonisms,
ed. by Robert M. MacIver (New York: Institute for Religious Studies, 1943).
74. Alain Locke, World View on Race and Democracy: A Study Guide in Human
Group Relations (Chicago: American Library Association, 1943).
75. Maurice Dartique to Henry Allen Moe, 21 May 1942, Moe Papers, American
Philosophical Society. 76. Locke to Moe, 5 June 1943, Moe Papers, American
Philosophical Society.
77. Locke to Moe, 30 July 1943 (“Report: Visit to Haiti, April 3rd-July 10, 1943,”
p. 2), Moe Papers, American Philosophical Society.
78. Alain Locke, “The Negro in the Three Americas,” Journal of Negro Education
Vol. 14 (Winter 1944) p. 18. Reprinted in Jeffrey C. Stewart, ed., The Critical
Temper of Alain Locke: A Selection of His Essays on Art and Culture (New York
and London: Garland, 1983) p. 469.
79. Locke to Moe, 30 July 1943 (“Report: Visit to Haiti, April 3rd-July 10, 1943,”
p. 2), Moe Papers, American Philosophical Society.
80. Alain Locke, Le rôle du Negro dans la culture des Amerique (Port-au-Prince:
Haiti imprimerie de l’état, 1943).
81. Locke to Moe, 30 July 1943 (“Report: Visit to Haiti, April 3rd-July 10, 1943,”
p. 2, Moe Papers, American Philosophical Society.
82. Winston, “Locke, Alain LeRoy,” p. 403.
83. Blackwell to Locke, 4 April 1943, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-14,
Folder 16 (Blackwell, Elsworth and Ruth).
84. Gulick to Locke, 11 October 1943, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-33,
Folder 17 (Gulick, Robert L. Jr.).
85. Juliet Thompson to Locke, Western Union Telegram, 21 October 1943, Alain
estrangement and rededication
217
Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-89, Folder 43 (Thompson, Juliet).
86. Text of report courtesy of Gayle Morrison, e-mail message, 8 July 2002. See
also Morrison, To Move the World, pp. 285 and 362, n. 27, citing Louis Gregory,
“The Historic Thirty-Sixth Convention,” Bahá’í News, no. 170 (Sept. 1944) p. 7.
87. Juliet Thompson to Locke, 26 October 1943, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box
164-89, Folder 43 (Thompson, Juliet).
88. See link at the Alain L. Locke Society http://www.alainlocke.com/ lockes%20
essay.htm.
89. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-105, Folder 33: (re: America’s position
in world affairs in relation to race. Speech over station KMYR, Denver. 6 August
1944, p. 6.
90. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-105, Folder 33: [re: America’s position
in world affairs in relation to race.] Speech over station KMYR, Denver. 6 August
1944, p. 7.
91. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-105, Folder 33: [re: America’s position
in world affairs in relation to race.] Speech over station KMYR, Denver. 6 August
1944, p. 8.
92. Sengstacke to Locke, 15 Nov. 1944, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164,
(Abbott, Robert S.). On Chicago Defender letterhead.
93. [John Russell?], “Next Monday,” Town Hall, Vol. 6, no. 30 (24 July 1944).
94. Gulick to Locke, 28 January 1944, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-33,
Folder 17 (Gulick, Robert L. Jr.).
95. Gulick to Locke, “25” [February 1944], Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box
164-33, Folder 17 (Gulick, Robert L. Jr.).
96. Ibid.
97. Shoghi Effendi to Locke, Western Union cablegram, 17 January 1944, Alain
Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-12, Folder 3 (Bahá’í World); also, “References
to Dr. Alain Locke in Letters Written on Behalf of Shoghi Effendi,” Attachment,
The Universal House of Justice to Buck, 16 July 2001. See also Holley to Locke,
1 February 1944, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-36, Folder 47 (Holley,
Horace); Paine to Locke, 3 February 1944; and Paine to Locke, 4 March 1944,
Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-12, Folder 3 (Bahá’í World). Original manuscript in Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-106, Folder 22.
98. Holley (NSA) to Locke, 1 February 1944, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box
164-36, Folder 47 (Holley, Horace).
99. Paine to Locke, 3 February 1944, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-12,
Folder 3 (Bahá’í World).
100. Paine to Locke, 4 March 1944, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-12,
Folder 3 (Bahá’í World).
101. Alain Locke, “The Moral Imperatives for World Order,” Summary of
Proceedings, Institute of International Relations, Mills College, Oakland, CA,
June 18-28, 1944, pp. 19-20. Reprinted in Leonard Harris, ed., The Philosophy of
Alain Locke, pp. 143, 151-152.
102. Harris, ed., The Philosophy of Alain Locke, p. 152.
103. Ibid.
104. NBA. Courtesy of Roger Dahl, Archivist.
105. Alain Locke, “Lessons in World Crisis,” in The Bahá’í World: A Biennial
International Record, Volume IX, April 1940-April 1944, comp. National Spiritual
218
alain locke: faith & philosophy
Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada (Wilmette: Bahá’í
Publishing Committee, 1945; reprint, 1981) pp. 745-47.
106. Beth J. Singer 1999. “Alain Locke Remembered,” in Leonard Harris, ed.,
The Critical Pragmatism of Alain Locke: A Reader in Value Theory, Aesthetics,
Community, Culture, Race, and Education (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999)
p. 328.
107. Ibid., p. 329.
108. Locke to Kallen, 8 March 1946, Horace M. Kallen Papers, Manuscript
Collection No. 1, Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives,
Cincinnati Campus, Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion, Box 19,
Folder 2 (Locke, Alain, 1946-1959). My thanks to Ms. Elise Nienaber for kindly
providing me with a copy of this letter.
109. Kallen to Locke, 12 February 1946, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 16442, Folder 15 (Kallen, Horace M.).
110. Singer, “Alain Locke Remembered,” pp. 329-30.
111. Photocopy of article, “Dr. Locke Pleads for World Culture,” in Alain Locke
Papers.
112. See Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-123, Folder 8 (“On Becoming
World Citizens.” Commencement Address at University of Wisconsin High
School, 28 May 1946. [typescript]).
113. “Bahá’í Membership List, Washington, D.C. Electoral District for 1946
State and Province Elections (Corrected List).” NBA. Courtesy of Roger Dahl,
Archivist.
114. Genevieve L. Coy to Locke, 3 February 1946, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC,
Box 164-22, Folder 18 (Coy, Genevieve L.).
115. No record has been found to indicate whether or not Locke actually did make
it to Green Acre to conduct the course.
116. “Local Communities,” Bahá’í News, No. 182 (April 1946): 6.
117. Ibid.
118. Katherine Biddle Papers, Georgetown University, Lauinger Library, Special
Collections Division. Finding aid. Online: http://www.library.georgetown.edu
/dept/speccoll/biddlek/series2.htm. Accessed 9 August 2003.
119. Kallen to Locke, 14 August 1947, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-42,
Folder 15 (Kallen, Horace M.).
120. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-143, Folder 3 (Christianity, spirituality, religion).
121. “D.C. Bahá’í Membership List, D.C. [sic] Electoral District for 1947 State
and Province Elections.” NBA. Courtesy of Roger Dahl, Archivist.
122. Kallen to Locke, 14 March 1946, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-42,
Folder 15 (Kallen, Horace M.).
123. Ibid.
124 Kallen to Locke, 5 March 1946, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-42,
Folder 15 (Kallen, Horace M.).
125. “Bahá’í Membership List: 1948 State Election, Washington, D.C. Electoral
District.” NBA. Courtesy of Roger Dahl, Archivist.
126. “Voting Members of the Washington, DC Bahá’í Community, 6 April 1949,
Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-176, Folder 13 (Bahá’í Faith).
127. “Bahá’í Membership List: 1949 State Election, Washington, D.C. Electoral
estrangement and rededication
219
District.” NBA. Courtesy of Roger Dahl, Archivist.
128. [Untitled], Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-143, Folder 5 (Writings by
Locke—Notes. Christianity, spirituality, religion).
129. Leonard Harris, “‘Outing’ Alain Locke: Empowering the Silenced” in Sexual
Identities, Queer Politics, ed. by Mark Blasius (Princeton University Press, 2001)
pp. 321-41.
130. Qtd. in Harris, “ ‘Outing’ Alain Locke: Empowering the Silenced,” p. 338
(but without a precise archival reference).
131. Locke, “Auto-Biog” [handwritten note], 1 October 1949, Alain Locke
Papers, MSRC, Box 164-143, Folder 5 [Autobiographical writings]).
132. Harris, “ ‘Outing’ Alain Locke,” p. 331.
133. Ibid.
134. Ibid.
135. “Auto-Biog” [handwritten note], 10 June 1948, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC,
Box 164-143, Folder 5 [Autobiographical writings]).
136. Harris. “ ‘Outing’ Alain Locke,” p. 329.
137. “Bahá’í teachings on sexual morality center on marriage and the family as
the bedrock of the whole structure of human society, and are designed to protect
and strengthen that divine institution. Thus Bahá’í law restricts permissible sexual
intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.” (From
a letter of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, 14 March
1973.)
138. Yet this is no cause for harboring prejudice towards homosexuals, as the
Universal House of Justice clearly states: “To regard homosexuals with prejudice
and disdain would be entirely against the spirit of the Teachings. The doors are
open for all of humanity to enter the Cause of God, irrespective of their present
circumstances; this invitation applies to homosexuals as well as to any others who
are engaged in practices contrary to the Bahá’í teachings.” (From a letter of the
Universal House of Justice, 1995, in “The Bahá’í Teachings on Homosexuality,”
The American Baha’i (Qawl 152/November 23, 1995). Online: http://bahai-library.
org/uhj/homosexuality.uhj.html
139. Jackson Armstrong-Ingram, personal communication, e-mail message dated
22 July 2004, posted in the “Tarikh” listserve.
140. Harris. “ ‘Outing’ Alain Locke,” pp. 338-39.
141. Ibid., p. 339.
142. Gregory to Locke, 6 April 1949, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-32,
Folder 50 (Gregory, Louis G.).
143. Faxed memo, 10 October 1994, Robert H. Stockman, Research Office,
Bahá’í National Center, Wilmette, IL, to Moojan Momen, General Editor, Bahá’í
Encyclopedia Project, Bahá’í Encyclopedia Archives Files. Courtesy of Gayle
Morrison, General Editor, Bahá’í Encyclopedia Project, e-mail, 3 July 2002.
144. “State or Electoral District Voting List—1950: Washington—District of
Columbia.” NBA. Courtesy of Roger Dahl, Archivist.
145. Kallen to Locke, 13 June 1950, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-42,
Folder 15 (Kallen, Horace M.).
146. “State or Electoral District Voting List—1951: Washington—District of
Columbia.” NBA. Courtesy of Roger Dahl, Archivist.
147. Gregory to Locke, 21 January 1951, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 16432, Folder 50 (Gregory, Louis G.).
220
alain locke: faith & philosophy
148. Kallen to Locke, 30 June 1952,, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-42,
Folder 15 (Kallen, Horace M.).
149. Locke to Kallen, 24 June 1952, Horace M. Kallen Papers, Manuscript
Collection No. 1, Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives,
Cincinnati Campus, Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion, Box 19,
Folder 2 (Locke, Alain, 1946-1959). My thanks to Ms. Elise Nienaber for kindly
providing me with a copy of this letter. See also the same letter, Locke to Kallen,
24 June 1952,, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-42, Folder 15 (Kallen,
Horace M.).
150. Qtd. in Ralph J. Bunche, et al., “The Passing of Alain Leroy Locke.” Phylon,
Vol. 15 (1954) p. 247.
151. Locke to Kallen, 30 July 1952, Horace M. Kallen Papers, Manuscript
Collection No. 1, Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives,
Cincinnati Campus, Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion, Box 19,
Folder 2 (Locke, Alain, 1946-1959). My thanks again to Ms. Elise Nienaber for
kindly providing me with a copy of this letter.
152. Michael Rochester, e-mail message, Wednesday, February 6, 2002. In a subsequent message, Professor Rochester wrote: “You are certainly welcome to cite
or incorporate my all too brief recollections of meeting Alain Locke in your book.
I’m not sure I could do a better job of rewriting it in narrative form as you suggest,
particularly because I remember nothing of the substance of what he said—but will
give it some thought.” February 7, 2002.
Rochester served on the National Spiritual Assembly of Canada from 1963
to 1992. His wife, Elizabeth Manser (Rochester) was also elected to the National
Spiritual Assembly of Canada and was a member of that council from 1966-1967
and 1972-1983. Trained as a social group worker at the University of Toronto, she
became one of the most effective teachers of the Faith in Canada and one of the
wisest counselors to troubled local Assemblies and individuals. In 1967, Elizabeth
and Michael pioneered to St. John’s, Newfoundland. They both now serve on
Regional Bahá’í Council for the Atlantic Provinces (one of six such councils in
Canada).
153. “Baha’i Faith, Only Church in World That Does Not Discriminate.” Ebony,
Vol. 7 (12 October 1952) pp. 39-46 [39]. Locke kept a copy of this article. Alain
Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-147, Folder 12 (Articles, advertisements that
mention Locke).
154. Locke to Kallen, 18 February 1953, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 16442, Folder 15 (Kallen, Horace M.).
155. [Untitled] “Alain Locke, June 5, 1953,” Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box
164-1, Folder 2 (Autobiographical statements) p. 1.
156. Ibid.. p. 2.
157. Ibid., p. 3.
158. Ibid.
159. Ibid. Alain Locke, “Enter the New Negro,” Survey Graphic, Vol. 53, no.
11 (1 March 1925) pp. 631-34. Reprinted in Jeffrey C. Stewart, ed., The Critical
Temper of Alain Locke: A Selection of His Essays on Art and Culture (New York
and London: Garland, 1983) p. 9.
160. [Untitled] “Alain Locke, June 5, 1953,” Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box
164-1, Folder 2 (Autobiographical statements) p. 4.
estrangement and rededication
221
161. Ibid.
162. Ibid.
163. Quoted by Shaveda Scott, “Alain Locke.” Can be found online at: http://
www.english.howard.edu/english/locke/alocke.html. Accessed 9 August 2003.
164. Nina Matthisen to Locke, 5 September 1952; and press release (1953), Alain
Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-176, Folder 13 (Bahá’í Faith).
165. Alain Locke, “Values That Matter,” Review of The Realms of Value, by
Ralph Barton Perry, Key Reporter, Vol. 19, no. 3 (1954) p. 4.
166. Margaret Just Butcher, The Negro in American Culture (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1956).
167. Harris, Philosophy of Alain Locke, p. 300. Locke instructed that his remains
be cremated. See Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-1, Folder 6 (Will and
instructions in case of death); and Folder 7 (Last will and testament, 1943).
Along with many other Bahá’ís at that time, Locke was probably unaware of
the Bahá’í religious proscriptions against cremation. See also William Stanley
Braithwaite, Ralph Bunche, C. Glenn Carrington, W. E. B. Du Bois, Benjamin
Karpman, Yervant Krikorian, William Stuart Nelson. Alain LeRoy Locke funeral
orations brochure, 1952-1954. Rare Books and Manuscripts. Black history and
literature collection (University Park, PA: University Libraries, Pennsylvania State
University, 1954).
168. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-1, Folder 7 (Last will and testament,
1943).
169. Bahá’í News, No. 282 (1954) p. 11.
170. William Stanley Braithwaite, et al. Alain LeRoy Locke funeral orations brochure, 1952-1954.
171. Benjamin Karpman, in Alain LeRoy Locke funeral orations brochure, 19521954, qtd. in Washington, Alain Locke and Philosophy, p. xxx.
172. Kallen to Fauset, undated, Horace M. Kallen Papers, Manuscript Collection
No. 1, Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati
Campus, Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion, Box 19, Folder 2
(Locke, Alain, 1946-1959). My thanks again to Ms. Elise Nienaber for kindly
providing me with a copy of this letter.
173. Horace Kallen, undated, Horace M. Kallen Papers, Manuscript Collection
No. 1, Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati
Campus, Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion, Box 19, Folder 2
(Locke, Alain, 1946-1959).
174. Nathan Higgins, “The Alain L. Locke Symposium, December 1, 1973.”
Edited by Archie C. Epps. The Harvard Advocate, Vol. 107, no. 4 (1974) p. 11.
ALAIN LOCKE
Chapter Nine
Bahá’í Essays.
Locke wrote four essays published in six volumes of The Bahá’í World:
(1) “Impressions of Haifa” (1926, 1929, 1930), first published in Star
of the West (1924)1; (2) “Unity through Diversity: A Bahá’í Principle”
(1933);2 (3) “The Orientation of Hope” (1936);3 and (4) “Lessons in
World Crisis” (1945).4 The Bahá’í World volumes are a record of the
international development of the Bahá’í Faith. These volumes were,
at the time, the most important Bahá’í publications next to authorized
translations of the Bahá’í sacred writings.
In the realm of public relations, The Bahá’í World volumes served
as the official international voice of the Bahá’í Faith, prior to the establishment of the Bahá’í International Community at the United Nations.
In this sense, therefore, Locke’s Bahá’í World essays may be regarded
as having official sanction. In addition, there is a fifth Bahá’í essay,
untitled and evidently unpublished, that I discovered among the Alain
Locke Papers. For convenient reference, we have assigned it a title
drawn from the first line of the essay, “The Gospel for the Twentieth
Century.”5
These essays profile Locke’s perspectives as a Bahá’í. How he
came to write these essays, which customarily were solicited, is an
important consideration. Although Shoghi Effendi supervised its publication and approved its contents, normally the editors of The Bahá’í
World issued invitations to writers for articles. This was the case with
Locke, except that Shoghi Effendi personally solicited Locke’s final
223
224
alain locke: faith & philosophy
essay, “Lessons in World Crisis.” That the leader of the Bahá’í World
made this personal request reveals the high regard that Shoghi Effendi
had for Locke.
In 1930, in a letter written on his behalf to Mrs. French, a project
editor of The Bahá’í World, Shoghi Effendi suggested that “some firstclass men” be asked “to write some articles” for the volume. Articles
of such high caliber would make a “great contribution” to the project.
“For example Mr. [sic] Locke of Washington could be asked to write
an article on the Bahá’í teachings and the colour problem. I am sure
he would do it willingly.”6 Later in this chapter, we will see how
Shoghi Effendi sought Locke’s advice and feedback on the translation
Bahá’u’lláh’s Kitáb-i Íqán (Persian, 1861). There is no doubt about the
importance of Locke’s literary contributions to the Bahá’í community
and Shoghi Effendi’s appreciation of their great value.
In his collection of Locke’s philosophical writings, Leonard Harris
included two of Locke’s four Bahá’í World essays: “The Orientation
of Hope” and “Unity through Diversity: A Bahá’í Principle.”7 Locke’s
Bahá’í essays are short, but written in a dense style, packed with a
special vocabulary of technical philosophical terms that double as
common words, which the uninitiated reader will gloss over, missing
their deeper meaning. Locke’s conceptual colors are deceptively
simple, but rich and vivid. His “Impressions of Haifa” has already been
discussed above.
“Unity Through Diversity: A Bahá’í Principle”: Mention has already
been made of Shoghi Effendi’s recommendation that Mrs. French invite
an article from Locke for the forthcoming number of The Bahá’í World.
The full text of that request is as follows:
Shoghi Effendi does not at present have any suggestions to give you about
the forthcoming number. Maybe he will have some in the future. The only
constructive suggestion he can now make is concerning the articles. Maybe
if you from now ask some first-class men to write some articles and assign
the subjects in such a way as to make them an interesting whole, it will be a
great contribution to the book. The articles should, however, be scholarly and
written by competent men. For example Mr. [sic] Locke of Washington could
be asked to write an article on the Bahá’í teachings and the colour problem. I
am sure he would do it willingly.8
Alain Locke was the first (and only) name that immediately came
to Shoghi Effendi’s mind when suggesting that articles be solicited
bahá’í essays
225
from “first-class men” who were “competent” to write “scholarly” articles. This advice also reflects the Guardian’s agenda, where he accords
priority to America’s racial crisis.
Locke was typically overworked and overbooked, although he did
take considerable time off for his international travels. Consequently,
he was often behind in his writing schedule, including his commitments to Bahá’í publications. A short letter, dated 29 December 1931,
that Locke received from Mrs. Wanden M. La Farge, one of the staff
involved in The Bahá’í World project reads: “Dear Doctor Locke: No
article for the Bahai World has appeared from you and this is merely
a warning that the next step will be not one but a series of telegrams
collect. With very best regards.”9 Needless to say, Locke completed his
essay and sent it in time for publication.
As to the essay itself, any reader who is familiar with this particular
Bahá’í principle will be struck by the title Locke chose, for the simple
reason that Bahá’ís are accustomed to seeing it expressed as “unity
in diversity.” Here, Locke offers a variant: “unity through diversity.”
Assuming his choice of “through” was deliberate rather than accidental, clearly “through” has a dynamic quality largely lacking in the
static preposition “in.” The sense here is that unity must work to fuse
disparate elements of society rather than simply exist in the midst of
them. Diversity is elemental to unity and a necessary component of it.
That is why “through” is deeper, more thoroughgoing than “in.” We
shouldn’t press this distinction too far, however, for elsewhere in his
essay he does speak of “unity in diversity.”10 So the two forms are
synonymous.
In humanity’s search “to cure . . . modern ills,” Locke writes that
“any remedy seriously proposed must be fundamental and not superficial, and wide-scale or universal rather than local or provincial.”
Reflecting on the signs of the times, Locke writes: “Ten years ago,
national, racial, or some equivalent circumscribed loyalty and interest
would have been unquestionably assumed, and agitated almost without
apology as axiomatic. I regard this change, although as yet a negative
gain, as both one of the most significant and positive steps forward
that humanity has taken,—or rather,—has been forced to take.” The
growing “demand for universality” is “beyond doubt the most characteristic modern thing in the realm of spiritual values.”11
In a trenchant critique of Western values, Locke takes the West
to task for having made the mistake of conflating unity with unifor-
226
alain locke: faith & philosophy
mity. “What the contemporary mind stands greatly in need of,” writes
Locke, “is the divorce of the association of uniformity with the notion
of the universal, and the substitution of the notion of equivalence.”
Equivalence is a key philosophical concept for Locke. The problem is
that, in its emphasis on sameness, the West has adopted the paradigm
of the melting pot, which, rather than eliminating all differences, effectively maintains the cultural dominance of Anglo-Saxonism. Locke
calls this “the specific blight and malady of the modern and Western
mind.” These are strong words. To achieve “spiritual unity,” this is what
Locke prescribes: “What we need to learn most is how to discover unity
and spiritual equivalence underneath the differences which at present
disunite and sunder us, and how to establish some basic spiritual reciprocity on the principle of unity in diversity.”12
“Equivalence” and “reciprocity” are key philosophical notions
in Locke’s philosophy, just as are other terms—like the principle of
“loyalty” which derives wholly from Locke’s Harvard mentor Josiah
Royce, particularly Royce’s The Philosophy of Loyalty (1908) and
“The Religion of Loyalty” (1912). Locke cautions that Bahá’ís ought
not to claim ownership of these principles, but rather to promote them.
And here he speaks to his Bahá’í audience. There is a very real danger,
he warns his fellow Bahá’ís, in asserting this teaching of unity in
diversity as somehow “exclusively” Bahá’í. This does not mean that
Bahá’í truth-claims are invalid. Quite the contrary. Locke recognizes
that indeed “there is no escaping the historical evidences of its early
and its uncompromising adoption by the Bahá’í prophets and teachers.”
But Bahá’ís must not insist “on this side of the claim.” Rather, Locke
advises that “the intelligent, loyal Bahá’í should stress not the source,
but the importance of the idea, and rejoice not in the originality and
uniqueness of the principle but rather in its prevalence and practicality.”13
“The idea,” moreover, “has to be translated into every important
province of modern life and thought, and in many of these must seem
to be independently derived and justified.” Locke offers a true test of
Bahá’í universality: “The purity of Bahá’í principles must be gauged
by their universality on this practical plane. Do they fraternize and fuse
with all their kindred expressions?” In other words, are Bahá’ís promoting their own principles primarily for the purpose of making this world
a better place, rather than for proselytizing? Here, Locke uses purity of
motive and disinterestedness as criteria of Bahá’í authenticity.14
bahá’í essays
227
After cautioning Bahá’ís against the appearance of “sectarianism”
in “our factional and denominationalized world,” Locke makes a very
interesting comment that seems to justify, however obliquely, his own
involvement in the Harlem Renaissance and the “New Negro” movement that it promulgated: “Can anyone with a fair-minded sense of
things, give wholesale condemnation to the partisanships of Indian
Nationalism, or Chinese integrity and independence, or Negro and proletarian self-assertion after generations of persecution and restriction?”
In spending half his essay in framing these problems “of national, class
and racial strife,” Locke asks the question: “Is there no remedy?” This
is where Locke’s faith as a Bahá’í and his philosophy as a cultural
pluralist explicitly converge: “Josiah Royce, one of the greatest of the
American philosophers saw this problem more clearly than any other
Western thinker, and worked out his admirable principle of loyalty,
which is nothing more or less than a vindication of the principle of
unity in diversity carried out to a practical degree of spiritual reciprocity.”15
Locke implicitly defines Royce’s principle of loyalty as the “equivalence of value” between loyalty to one’s group and those of other
groups. “In starting with the unequivocal assertion of equivalence and
reciprocity between religions,” Locke adds, “the Bahá’í teaching has
touched one of the trunk-nerves of the whole situation.” Here, “equivalence and reciprocity between religions” is Locke’s philosophical
recasting of the “oneness of religion,” so common in Bahá’í parlance.
He calls on Bahá’ís to carry this principle “into the social and cultural
fields” in order to enlist the support of “the most vigorous and intellectual elements” of those societies. In so doing, Bahá’ís will have “translated into more secular terms” their own principles, achieving thereby
“a positive multiplication of spiritual power” and an “application and
final vindication of the Bahá’í principles.” He exhorts “every Bahá’í
believer to carry the universal dimension of tolerance and spiritual
reciprocity into every particular cause and sectarianism he can reach,”
and to “share the loyalties of the group, but upon a different plane and
with a higher perspective.”16
Locke ends this remarkable essay by saying: “Each period of a faith
imposes a new special problem.” The special challenge of “this particular critical decade” is the “task of transposing the traditional Bahá’í
reciprocity between religions into the social and cultural denominationalisms of nation, race and class, vindicating anew upon this plane
228
alain locke: faith & philosophy
the precious legacy of the inspired teachings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and
Bahá’u’lláh.”17
Given the nature and purpose of The Bahá’í World, whose intended
audience was primarily the non-Bahá’í public, Locke’s essay is atypical.
Virtually all essays in these volumes are sermonic in tone, but in such
a way that propounds and promotes Bahá’í principles for the benefit
of an outside audience. Locke’s admonitions to Bahá’ís represent a
curious inversion of this norm. One cannot escape the feeling that—in
this essay especially—not only was Locke setting the standards by
which the Bahá’í Faith would be judged by the world, but also revealing how he himself would judge the Bahá’ís and his own involvement
with the Bahá’í community.
“The Orientation of Hope”: “The Orientation of Hope,” according to
Harris, “is a definitive expression of Locke’s belief in the Bahá’í Faith
and its focus on the universal principles definitive of spiritual faiths.”18
In this essay, Locke offers some fraternal advice to Bahá’ís, in much
the same vein as the previous essay. At the same time, as Harris rightly
observes, it is Locke’s eloquent testimony to the strength of his own
convictions as a Bahá’í.
In troubled times, where should we “orient our hopes”? The answer
must be “worthy of the possessors of a virile and truly prophetic
spiritual revelation”—meaning the Bahá’ís and the Bahá’í Faith. In the
“present twilight hour,” in “this dusk of disillusionment,” Locke calls
upon “those of us who are truly dawn-minded” to rise to this challenge.
As Locke frames it:
Must we not as true Bahá’í believers in these times embrace our principles
more positively, more realistically, and point everywhere possible our assertion of the teachings with a direct challenge? . . . Especially does it seem to
me to be the opportunity to bring the Bahá’í principles again forcefully to the
attention of statesmen and men of practical affairs . . . Is it not reasonably
clear to us that now is the time for a world-wide, confident and determined
offensive of peaceful propaganda for the basic principles of the Cause of
brotherhood, peace and social justice? . . . And to do that powerfully, effectively, the Bahá’í teaching needs an inspired extension of the potent realism
of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá by which he crowned and fulfilled the basic idealism of
Bahá’u’lláh.19
Locke reaffirms here his faith and solidarity with his fellow
Bahá’ís. He advocates bringing the Bahá’í principles “forcefully to the
attention of statesmen and men of practical affairs.”
The reader may wish to skip over the middle of the essay, in which
bahá’í essays
229
Locke quotes H. G. Wells at some length. “I have cited this quotation,”
Locke explains, “as a representative sample of the drift of intelligent
thought today upon the whole world situation.20 What likely governed
Locke’s choice here was Wells’s use of the term, “new world order,”
which ties in with the Bahá’í vision of the future as articulated by
Shoghi Effendi, who uses the same term.
While eloquent, as practically all of Locke’s essays are, “The
Orientation of Hope” has the feel of having been hastily written. Again,
the message comes across as a sermon for the benefit of Bahá’ís, lest
they become too insular and parochial. “I have but one practical suggestion,” Locke writes, “that without forgetting the language in terms
of which we ourselves have learned the principles, we shall take pains
to learn and speak a language which the practical-minded man of
affairs, and the realistic common man can and will understand.”21 In
transposing the Bahá’í principle of “unity through diversity” into the
conceptual framework of cultural pluralism, and then translating this
into a discourse of democracy that Americans could appreciate, Locke
did precisely this in his own work.
“Lessons in World Crisis”: In January 1944, Shoghi invited Locke to
contribute what would be his final Bahá’í World essay. “The Twentieth
Century seems destined,” Locke begins his essay, “to be the age of a
terrestrial revelation of the essential and basic oneness of mankind.”
Out of this welter of chaos and crisis, “the lesson of unity must be
learned” on “a world-scale.” Locke expresses the hope that in the
aftermath of a terrible war humankind might finally learn from “the
staggering futilities of disunity.” This crisis can be “solved only by
a fundamental change of our individual and social attitudes,” which
Bahá’í teachings had advocated for nearly a century. The event of the
Bahá’í Centenary (1944) provided an opportunity to reflect on world
war and world peace, and on the principles that the Bahá’í revelation
brings to bear on them.
What once was an issue contemplated only by “a few prophetic
minds” along with “a small minority of clear-sighted liberals” has now
become a matter of global concern. People “may not know the solution to the problem, . . . but they do know it as a basic issue.” They
“vaguely sense that it represents the great impasse of our present-day
civilization.” Furthermore, a growing number of people now “realize
that some basic spiritual reorientation is a prerequisite to the effec-
230
alain locke: faith & philosophy
tive solution of many, if not most, of the specific political, economic
and cultural issues of our time.” Locke uses the term “psychological
disarmament” and points out that it was “found impossible because on
the political and economic plane we had no moral conviction or even
insight about an integrating principle.”22
Locke speaks of the benefits of interfaith cooperation: “In our
religious life, the leading religious liberals are increasingly recognizing the imperative need to inter-faith movements.” Locke refers to
the ecumenical movement, to Protestant-Catholic rapprochement, and
to Jewish-Christian dialogue. But “such effort has not as yet been
adequately extended to the Muslim and Oriental fronts,” Locke says.
In oblique reference to his own philosophical orientation, Locke recognizes the “leadership of cultural anthropologists.” Like the great
Franz Boas, these researchers are “willing to admit the essential parity
of cultures—a very necessary spiritual foundation for any true world
order of peoples and nations.” Continuing in this vein, Locke notes
that the “field of education” appears to be “on the verge of realizing
that international-mindedness,” which can only come about through “a
sense of common purpose among educators throughout the world.”23
Addressing racial issues, Locke observes that there is a general
public awareness of the “threat of race and class cleavage within our
Western societies” and that “no basic sense of human unity on a world
scale can develop” unless and until world leaders arrive at “the desirable and right human values and attitudes.” Here, Locke argues that
the most fundamental and surest recourse for changing the world is
to transform how we look at it. Through a basic reorientation involving a global-minded change of consciousness, “a convergence of
moral growth and development in the practical implementation of the
‘oneness of humanity’ “ might be attained.24
Locke concludes his essay by drawing a connection between the
experience of World War II and its synchronicity with Bahá’í history:
“It is highly significant that such developments as these coincide with
the first Centennial of the Bahá’í revelation of these basic principles.”25
Locke speaks of a “converging series of confirmations” that “warrant
our initial statement” that “The Twentieth Century seems destined to
be the age of a terrestrial revelation of the essential and basic oneness
of mankind.”26 In this short essay, Locke has skillfully woven together
major trends in current events and has made sense of them in terms of
humanity’s terrible ordeal borne of profound disunity.
bahá’í essays
231
Unlike the two previous essays, which were really directed towards
Bahá’ís, Locke’s “Lessons in World Crisis” is clearly written for the
non-Bahá’í public. This shift in Locke’s focus is a new development
for him. It reflects a move away from his preoccupation with reorienting Bahá’ís and encouraging them to redirect their energies to place a
higher priority on deeds rather than words. Locke’s “Lessons in World
Crisis” is a thoughtful and subtle invitation for seekers to investigate
the truth-claims of the Bahá’í Faith in light of its universal principles.
Translation of the Book of Certitude: One result of my archival research
was the discovery of another contribution Locke had made to Bahá’í
literature—one that had no connection with race relations whatever.
Among the Alain Locke Papers were two letters to Locke, written on
behalf of Shoghi Effendi by his secretary, Ruhi Afnan. These letters
are dated 15 February and 5 July 1930.27 The first begins: “Dear Dr.
Locke: Shoghi Effendi has been lately spending his leisure hours translating the Book of Iqan for he considers it to be the key to a true understanding of the Holy Scriptures, and can easily rank as one of the most,
if not the most, important thing that Bahá’u’lláh revealed explaining
the basic beliefs of the Cause. He who fully grasps the purport of that
Book can claim to have understood the Cause.”28
The “Book of Iqan” is better known today as the Kitáb-i Íqán, or the
Book of Certitude, Bahá’u’lláh’s preeminent doctrinal text.29 In efforts
to perfect his working translation of the Íqán from Persian to English,
Shoghi Effendi called upon Locke as the person “best fitted to render
him [Shoghi Effendi] an assistance” in giving critical feedback on the
translation itself. He requested that Locke “go over it [the translation]
carefully, studying every sentence—its structure as well as choice of
words—and giving him [Shoghi Effendi] your [Locke’s] criticism as
well as constructive suggestions that would make it more lucid, English
and forceful.” He adds, “Shoghi Effendi is fully aware of the many
duties you have and how pressing your time is, and had he known of an
equally fitting person he would surely have saved you the trouble. Yet
he finds himself to be compelled.” The first letter was accompanied by
the first half of the translation. The second half was mailed later.
Always precise in wording and unambiguous in meaning, Shoghi
Effendi’s statement that “had he known of an equally fitting person he
would surely have saved you the trouble” is a superlative compliment
to Locke’s superior intellect and literary prowess. Beyond the manner
232
alain locke: faith & philosophy
that he has distinguished Locke, it is significant that the Guardian does
not convey even a hint of tokenism. Here, the Bahá’í leader sought the
assistance of the scholar purely and solely on the basis of Locke’s excellence. Race is erased from the discourse, as the two enjoyed a mutual
admiration and respect that transcended race and spanned decades.
Locke did as requested. Locke’s undated letter, postmarked 11 June
1930, to Shoghi Effendi reads in part:
As a whole the translation is a triumph of labor and insight into another
language. It reads well and euphonically—and for so complicated a sentence
structure is unusually clear. I know the need for full and literal translation,
and therefore did not dare suggest certain cuts and shortening which would
be desirable from the English and American readers’ point of view. It is a
difference primarily between the structure of the Eastern language and those
[languages] of the West. The coordinate phrases give us the impression of
prolixity—and the constant repetitions do not always increase the effectiveness of the writing. Perhaps you can consider this question, and obtain some
condensation by joining several coordinate statements in subordinate clause
constructions or for phrases use the mechanical advice [device?] of hendiadys
occasionally. Still, those who would really be interested in this inspired discourse will not be impatient anyhow. I look forward to the time when we may
all see it in print. We shall be ever grateful to you for your devoted labours
in making it accessible. May it speed the Cause to the ears of the learned and
influential!30
A subsequent letter, dated 5 July 1930, again written on behalf of
Shoghi Effendi, was sent to Locke to acknowledge his editorial assistance: “Though they were not so many, he [Shoghi Effendi] found the
suggestions you gave most helpful. . . . Shoghi Effendi has already
incorporated your suggestions and sent his manuscript [to the National
Spiritual Assembly of the United States and Canada] for publication.”
A most interesting comment follows: “It naturally depends upon that
body and the reviewing and publishing committees to decide whether
it should come out immediately or not.” The potential value of reaching the Western intelligentsia was noted as well: “The most important
service that can now be rendered to the Cause is to put the writings
of Bahá’u’lláh in a form that would be presentable to the intellectual
minds of the West. Shoghi Effendi’s hope in this work has been to
encourage others along this line.”
At the end of the letter, Shoghi Effendi penned the following in his
own hand:
bahá’í essays
233
My dear co-worker:
I wish to add a few words expressing my deep appreciation of your
valued suggestions in connection with the translation of the Iqan. I wish also
to express the hope that you may be able to lend increasing assistance to the
work of the Cause, as I have always greatly admired your exceptional abilities
and capacity to render distinguished services to the Faith. I grieve to hear of
the weakness of your heart which I trust may through treatment be completely
restored. I often remember you in my prayers and ever cherish the hope of
welcoming you again in the Master’s home.
Your true brother,
Shoghi.31
This exchange of correspondence should go far in dispelling any
doubts about Locke’s integrity as a Bahá’í or the depth of his convictions. He lived at a time when it was simply unacceptable to be anything but a Protestant, a Catholic, or a Jew—the three religions that
dominated America at that time. It seems that he chose to keep his
Bahá’í affiliation private, rather than risk his professional and social
standing.
“The Gospel for the Twentieth Century”: Without doubt, this was
Locke’s finest Bahá’í essay. It is certainly his most mature. It is also
the only one in which Locke has quoted Bahá’u’lláh directly. More
significant, perhaps, is Locke’s discussion of the relevance of Bahá’í
principles to the destiny of America. And of no less interest is the way
in which Locke presents the Bahá’í gospel of social salvation as the
complement and fulfillment of Christian ideals.
The manuscript itself is something of a discovery. The circumstances of its writing are unknown. For whatever reason, the essay was
never published. From the first line of the essay, it seems logical and
appropriate to title it, “The Gospel of the Twentieth Century.” Locke
opens his essay as follows:
The gospel for the Twentieth Century rises out of the heart of its greatest
problems,— and few who are spiritually enlightened doubt the nature of
that problem. The clashing ominous [t]est of issues of the practical world of
today,— the issues of race, sect, class and nationality, all have one basic spiritual origin, and for that reason, we hope and believe one basic cure.32
Here, the writer’s choice of the term “gospel” creates the expectation of a religious discussion of some kind. This is reinforced by the
idea of a “spiritual” cure. Locke identifies “the issues of race, sect, class
and nationality” as among the “greatest problems” of the twentieth
234
alain locke: faith & philosophy
century. Locke says that “only a widespread almost universal change
of social heart, a new spirit of human attitudes, can achieve the social
redemption that must eventually come.” After speaking of the Christian
millennial ideal of peace on earth, Locke uses a Christian vocabulary
to express Bahá’í ideals:
The redemption of society,— social salvation, should have been sought after
first,— the pragmatic test and proof of the fatherhood of God is after all
whether belief in it can realize the unity of mankind; and so the brotherhood
of man, as it has been inspirationally expressed. “Oneness of humanity”
must be in our day realized or religion die out gradually into ever-increasing
materiality. The salvation we have sought after as individuals in an after-life
and another sphere must be striven for as the practical peace and unity of the
human family here in this [world].
The reader should bear in mind that this is an unedited manuscript,
and so it is rough in spots. The message is lucid, nonetheless. Locke
presents “social salvation” as the necessary complement of personal
salvation. This is a Bahá’í teaching. One might see here an oblique
critique of Christianity when he speaks of the “finest and most practical
idea of Christianity, the idea of the millennium,— of peace on earth,”
as having lapsed into “a mystic’s mirage of another world.” The social
consequence is that the “Brotherhood of Man” has been weakened into
a “negligible corollary of the fatherhood of God.”
In a secular vein, Locke introduces a somewhat novel, although not
entirely new, concept of democracy: “Much has been accomplished in
the name of Democracy, but Spiritual Democracy, its largest and most
inner meaning, is so [read, still?] below our common horizons. . . .
America, that has in an economic and material way labored through to
the most promising material elements of democracy, is spiritually very
far from the realization of her own organic [i]deal.” Or, to put it more
bluntly: “The fundamental problems of current America are materiality
and prejudice.”
Each of these problems—class and race—has a separate history.
Still, they have but one root: “selfishness.” While their outward manifestations are seen in poverty and prejudice, these are simply manifestations of an inner crisis: “And so we must say with the acute actualities
of America’s race problem and acute potentialities of her economic
problem, the land that is nearest to material democracy is furthest away
from spiritual democracy . . .” Yet, Locke sees hopeful signs in “new
and promising efforts of race cooperation.” A “New South” is emerg-
bahá’í essays
235
ing, rising above the ashes of an “Old South.”
Here are a few clues to when this essay may have been written.
Locke speaks of “the new movement for the equalization of public
school expenditures, health and public welfare measures” that has
“only recently begun.” Locke also mentions “the great industrial migration of the Negro away from the South, which has led to ameliorative
measures to retain this economically valuable but hitherto socially
mis-valued group, and the increasing self-esteem and direction of the
New Negro.” The “New Negro” movement is commonly dated from
1925, with the publication of Locke’s book, The New Negro. Based on
this information, and with no reference to either World War II or the
Great Depression, a tentative date of 1926-1928 may be assigned to
this essay.
Locke goes on to contrast “uniformity” with “reciprocity” or “spiritual reciprocity.” Here, Locke transitions into philosophy. He explicitly
praises “the philosophy of the Austrian Rudolf Maria Holzapfel, with
its professed basic principle of the ‘Pan-Ideal,’ where universal values,
the point of view of all mankind is to be substituted for the narrowing
and hopelessly conflicting scales of value that race, class, nation and
sect have made almost chronic defects in our thinking.” Holzapfel and
his notion of a “Pan-Ideal” are now quite obscure. The significance
of Locke’s mention of these is that Locke was speaking here both as
a philosopher and a Bahá’í. In Locke’s view, there is something in
Holzapfel’s philosophy that resonates with Bahá’í values. One sees
here an attempt on Locke’s part to harmonize, however briefly, some
of the more progressive developments in philosophy with the teachings
of his religion.
What ultimately is needed, according to Locke, is “a revolution
within the soul.” Collectively, the aggregate effect of people’s change in
attitudes towards a more positive valuation of diversity will eventually
lead to what Locke calls the “salvation of society.” While philosophy
provides an important adjunct to this shift in values, it is probably in the
sphere of religious influence that the greatest change in social attitudes
will occur. Relatively few people listen to, much less are persuaded by,
what philosophers have to say. This is probably why Locke ends his
essay on a religious note. Leading up to his conclusion, he writes:
And we must begin heroically with the great apparent irreconcilables; the East
and the West, the black man and the self-arrogating Anglo-Saxon, for unless
these are reconciled, the salvation of society in this world cannot be. If the
236
alain locke: faith & philosophy
world had believingly understood the full significance of Him who taught it
to pray and hope “Thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in Heaven” who also
said “In my Father’s house are many mansions”, already we should be further
toward the realization of this great millennial vision.
To a Western audience, the language of “salvation” pertains to
the doctrinal vocabulary of Christianity. To be “saved” is to become a
Christian. Locke transfers this idea to the Bahá’í worldview. He uses
the Christian ideal of salvation as a bridge to the Bahá’í teachings,
which in principle fulfill the Christian millennial vision. This is how
Locke concludes his essay:
The word of God is still insistent, and more emphatic as the human redemption delays and becomes more crucial, and we have what Dr. Elsemont [John
E. Esslemont] rightly calls Baha’u’llah’s “one great trumpet-call to humanity”: “That all nations shall become one in faith, and all men as brothers;
that the bonds of affection and unity between the sons of men should be
strengthened; that diversity of religion should cease, and differences of race
be annulled . . . These strifes and this bloodshed and discord must cease, and
all men be as one kindred and family.”
This quotation comes from Cambridge Orientalist Edward G.
Browne’s historic interview with Bahá’u’lláh in 1890.33
Conclusions: There is nothing in these Bahá’í essays that is exceptionally brilliant or revolutionary, except to say that the interracial unity
that Locke was advocating was quite radical by the standards of his day.
Locke’s Bahá’í essays are really the first effort by a Western philosopher to represent the Bahá’í principles in the language of contemporary
philosophy. True, it was not a systematic effort. What we should take
very seriously is the fact that Locke brought his own philosophy to bear
on the great social issues of his day. Except for some legislative milestones that have punctuated American social history between then and
now, the issues of race, class, and gender remain much the same.
Locke’s Bahá’í essays are remarkably unapologetic. If anything,
he spent more time writing for the benefit of Bahá’ís than for others.
For whichever audience he wrote or spoke to, Locke never lost sight
of the whole question of values and their impact on society. To effect
social change was to advocate a shift in our social values. Values are, at
heart, the secular counterpart of beliefs. Religion makes values sacred.
For there to be social salvation in the secular world, religion needs to
bahá’í essays
237
promote “unity through diversity” and all that it implies in terms of
public policy and individual behavior.
Locke’s gospel was one of social salvation. It was a universal
message unencumbered by any particular religious affiliation. By submerging his Bahá’í witness, he converted a great number of Americans
to what could be thought of as Bahá’í principles. Locke was truly universal. In trying to save society from its cardinal sins of racial injustice,
poverty, and the like, his faith and philosophy fused into a message that
continues to be relevant today.
In a strictly secular context, arguably the most important element of
Locke’s philosophy is his discussion of the need for America to become
a “spiritual democracy.” The next chapter explores Locke’s philosophy
of democracy, treating it in nine dimensions, ranging from concepts of
“local democracy” to “world democracy.”
Notes
1. Reprints:
1924: Alain Locke, “Impressions of Haifa,” Star of the West, Vol. 15, no. 1
(1924) p. 13-14. Original manuscript in Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-115,
Folder 29 (“Impressions of Haifa” [typescript]).
1926: Reprint: Alaine (sic) Locke, “Impressions of Haifa,” in Bahá’í Year
Book, Volume I, April 1925-April 1926, comp. by National Spiritual Assembly
of the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada (New York: Bahá’í Publishing
Committee, 1926) pp. 81, 83.
1928: Alaine (sic) Locke, “Impressions of Haifa,” in The Bahá’í World:
A Biennial International Record, Volume II, April 1926-April 1928, comp. by
National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada (New
York: Bahá’í Publishing Committee, 1928; reprint, Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing
Trust, 1980) pp. 125, 127.
1930: Alain Locke, “Impressions of Haifa,” in The Bahá’í World: A Biennial
International Record, Volume III, April 1928-April 1930, comp. by National
Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada (New York:
Bahá’í Publishing Committee, 1930; reprint, Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust,
1980) pp. 280, 282.
2. Alain Locke, “Unity through Diversity: A Bahá’í Principle,” in The Bahá’í
World: A Biennial International Record, Volume IV, 1930-1932 (Wilmette: Bahá’í
Publishing Trust, 1933) pp. 372-374. Reprint (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust,
1980). Reprinted again in Locke, The Philosophy of Alain Locke, ed. by Leonard
Harris, pp. 133-138. Harris’ reference on p. 133 n. should be amended to read,
Volume IV, 1930-1932 (not “V, 1932-1934”).
3. Alain Locke, “The Orientation of Hope,” The Bahá’í World: A Biennial
International Record, Volume V, 1932-1934 (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust,
1936) pp. 527-28. Reprint Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1980. Reprinted
238
alain locke: faith & philosophy
again in Locke, The Philosophy of Alain Locke, ed. by Leonard Harris, pp. 129132. Harris’ reference on p. 129 n. should be emended to read, “Volume V, 19321934” (not “Volume IV, 1930-1932”). Original manuscript in Alain Locke Papers,
MSRC, Box 164-123, Folder 11 (“The Orientation of Hope.” 1934 [typescript]).
4. Alain Locke, “Lessons in World Crisis,” The Bahá’í World: A Biennial
International Record, Volume IX, 1940-1944 (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust,
1945) pp. 745-47. Reprint Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1981.
5. Untitled essay, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-143, Folder 3 (Writings
by Locke—Notes. Christianity, spirituality, religion).
6. From a letter dated 4 July 1930 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to Mrs.
French, “References to Dr. Alain Locke in Letters Written on Behalf of Shoghi
Effendi,” Attachment, The Universal House of Justice to Buck, 16 July 2001.
7. Harris, The Philosophy of Alain Locke, pp. 130-32, 134-38.
8. From a letter dated 4 July 1930 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to Mrs.
French, “References to Dr. Alain Locke in Letters Written on Behalf of Shoghi
Effendi,” Attachment, The Universal House of Justice to Buck, 16 July 2001.
9. Mrs. Oliver La Farge to Locke, 29 December 1931, Alain Locke Papers,
MSRC, Box 164-43, Folder 50 (La Farge, Oliver).
10. Harris, The Philosophy of Alain Locke, p. 135.
11. Ibid., 134
12. Ibid., 135. Emphasis added.
13. Ibid., p. 135.
14. Ibid., pp. 135-36.
15. Ibid., pp. 135-37.
16. Ibid., pp. 137.
17. Ibid., pp. 137-38.
18. Ibid., p. 129.
19. Ibid., pp. 130, 132.
20. Ibid., p. 131.
21. Ibid., p. 130.
22. Locke, “Lessons in World Crisis,” The Bahá’í World (1945), 745.
23. Ibid., p. 746.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid., pp. 746-47.
26. Ibid., p. 747.
27. Ruhi Afnan (on behalf of Shoghi Effendi) to Locke, 15 February 1930; Afnan
(on behalf of Shoghi Effendi) to Locke, 5 July 1930; Shoghi Effendi to Locke, 5
July 1930, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-10, Folder 2 (Afnan, Ruhi).
28. Ibid.
29. See Christopher Buck, Symbol and Secret: Qur’án Commentary in
Bahá’u’lláh’s Kitáb-i Íqán. Studies in the Bábí and Bahá’í Religions, Vol. 7 (Los
Angeles: Kalimát Press, 1995). Republished online as an electronic book at: http://
www.bahai-library.org/books/symbol.secret.
30. Locke to Shoghi Effendi, undated (postmarked 11 June 1930), Research
Department, Bahá’í World Center, Memorandum to The Universal House of
Justice, 26 December 2001.
31. Shoghi Effendi to Locke, 5 July 1930, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 16410, Folder 2 (Afnan, Ruhi).
bahá’í essays
239
32. Alain Locke Papers, Moorland-Spingarn Research Center, Manuscript
Division, Box 164-143, Folder 3 (Writings by Locke—Notes. Christianity spirituality, religion).
33. Browne, A Traveller’s Narrative, p. xl.
Courtesy of the Moorland-Spingarn Research Center, Howard University
ALAIN LOCKE WITH FIRST LADY ELEANOR ROOSEVELT
at the dedication of the South Side Community Art Center, May 7,
1941. Located in the “Black Metropolis” (or “Bronzeville”) at 3831 S.
Michigan Avenue, this Chicago landmark is the sole survivor of the more
than 100 centers established nationwide by the WPA/FAP during the
1930s and ‘40s. The dedication ceremony, at which both Locke and the
First Lady spoke, was nationally broadcast on CBS Radio.
Chapter Ten
Philosophy of Democracy:
America, Race, and World Peace
Bahá’í Principles and the leavening of our national life with their power,
is to be regarded as the salvation of democracy. In this way only can the
fine professions of American ideals be realized.
Alain Locke, “America’s Part in World Peace,”
Bahá’í Congress at Green Acre, April 19251
Locke was, at once, the spokesman of his race and a statesman for
America as a country. He forged a dynamic linkage between race
relations at home and international relations abroad. His vision was
world embracing, reflecting his religious convictions as a Bahá’í. In
widening the horizons of democracy on a world scale, Locke wanted to
“Americanize Americans”2 so that America might help democratize the
world. In other words, Locke wanted to make democracy in America
more democratic.
America, after all, was “a unique social experiment.”3 In certain
ways, the experiment had failed. Locke dedicated his life to making
that experiment succeed. By giving a fuller description of democracy,
Locke gave greater breadth and depth to the concept of democracy.
Democracy is not merely political; an ideal democracy is something
beyond the adversarial politics of a two-party system. It transcends
tolerance and demands more. It calls into question the assimilationist
paradigm of the “melting pot.” For Locke, democracy is something
more.
In fact, Locke speaks of at least nine dimensions of democracy.
241
242
alain locke: faith & philosophy
This chapter will present these dimensions by collating his various
essays and public talks on the topic and categorizing them under the
various rubrics that he commonly, although unsystematically, used.
This chapter presents Locke’s views on democracy, but imposes an
order on them that amounts to a typology or systematization of what
seems to be a deep structure within Locke’s philosophical thought.
From station KMYR in Denver, on 6 August 1944, Locke spoke on
America’s position in world affairs in relation to race.
It is indeed a privilege for me to be talking with you this evening about
America’s position in world affairs in relation to race; new vistas suddenly
open before us; the question is, are we going on with the THEORY or the
PRACTICE of democracy? . . .
America must continue to be a laboratory on racial issues; what nation
can better set the example than America? We must continue to solve our
own racial problems in order to keep the confidence of all other nations.
There are problems we must solve in So[uth] America and in the Caribbean
area, as well as in our own loved land. Democracy implies the equality of all
races, Oriental, Jewish, Negro . . . We must have poly-racial freedom for all
races. What, after all, has made America great? It is that we have a common
denominator, which is, loyalty to our ideals. Yes, we must continue to be a
world example. Here is the great new world of the Pacific area opening up;
we must demonstrate to those living within that sphere what democracy really
is; all impediments must be removed; we must show both the Orientals and
the Negroes what democracy really can accomplish.
It is true that Russia practices democracy, having more nationalities
within her borders than America, but America can compete with Russia;
both nations will, from now on, be concerned with international as well as
national racial issues. Yes, the United Nations will become a moral as well as
mechanical arsenal, and work on the problems of all minorities. In our own
country, north, south, east, mid-west, and west, all of us must be working on
these problems that arise from time to time.4
This was but one instance of Locke taking his philosophy of democracy to the people. It is interesting that Locke, in this radio broadcast,
referred to Russia as a “nation without prejudice” and to China as
“a non-white nation as a principal in the struggle on the democratic
side.”5 From the context, it appears that Locke is more concerned with
the demographic fact of “democracy” as a metonymy for what today
would be called “diversity.” Communism, under both the Russian and
Chinese forms of it, was antithetical to the American system of governance. Therefore, this part of Locke’s talk was unexplained.
As a public intellectual, Locke gave similar speeches on this topic
before live audiences, in civic and university settings, lecture halls
philosophy of democracy
243
and town halls, as well as in the broadcast studio. As an art and literary critic, Locke worked with artists and writers as “the champions of
democracy.”6 As educator and national leader in adult education, Locke
supported “an organized campaign for teaching American youth the
principles and the attitudes of democracy.”7 In 1947, Locke himself
taught a course in “Philosophy of Democracy” at Howard University.8
In all these venues, Locke sought to expand popular and scholarly
thinking about democracy, and what this meant for America. He challenged his audiences to reflect on the jingoist and largely unreflective
public assumptions about democracy. Locke’s philosophy of democracy proceeds from the problematics of American society, at the heart
of which is the question of race.
One could say that Locke’s entire life was a discourse on America,
democracy, and race. Race was central to this discourse because the
color line, at that time, defined America. If America was a democracy
in principle, it was not so in practice. As Harris observes: “American
democracy for Locke was hardly a finished social experiment, especially since it excluded most of the population from participation.”9
Locke was not alone in this pejorative view of America. Langston
Hughes, in his celebrated poem, “Let America Be America Again,”
suggests that America was never truly “America” since it had never
lived up to its egalitarian ideals. Songwriter Leonard Cohen, in his
song “Democracy,” expresses a similar, but optimistic sentiment in his
refrain: “Democracy is coming to the USA.” Indeed, much of American
literature has focused on the ideal of America.
An ardent supporter of democracy in principle, yet a trenchant
critic of it in practice, Locke’s vision of America transcended politics.
He expanded America’s understanding of democracy by adding breadth
and depth to the public conception of it. A survey of his essays and
speeches reveals a more complex and a richer approach to democracy
than has been described in the previous literature.10 While he did not
formalize his philosophy of democracy in any systematic way, one can
say that his conception of democracy was both evolutionary and multidimensional. In the notes for his lecture “Concept of Democracy,”
delivered on 10 December 1947, Locke spoke of how the “idea of
democracy has evolved.”11
This chapter will present a typology of Locke’s philosophy of
democracy in nine dimensions, with special reference to Locke’s vision
of America and the relation of this vision to parallel concepts pro-
244
alain locke: faith & philosophy
pounded in the Bahá’í Faith, whose principles he sought to secularize
in order to promote them. An inventory of these nine dimensions will
serve to more fully represent the profundity of Locke’s philosophy of
democracy in relation to his vision of America.
Scrapping the Melting Pot: Locke rejected the paradigm of the “melting
pot” as a definitive vision of America. For Locke, the vortex of
American democracy was race. Race is myth, a product of social forces
at variance with the ideals of democracy: “Consciousness of kind,”
Locke wrote, “is a force” that can lead to “unhealthy and rather unjust
distinctions in human society.” It is “the blight of modern society.”12
And yet obliteration of all such distinctions is equally odious, which is
why Locke criticized the idea of America as a “melting pot.” In a speech
on “The Negro Renaissance” held in Chicago at the Women’s City
Club and reported in the Chicago Defender, Locke publicly declared:
“America must scrap the idea of the melting pot democracy, and instead
encourage the development of that group’s [Negro] culture.”13 Locke
equally rejected the “mosaic” nature of Horace Kallen’s cultural pluralism. Locke’s own version may be characterized as midway between the
American melting pot and the Canadian mosaic.
Locke conceived of democracy in several dimensions, against all of
which he measured America’s fidelity to its democratic ideal. Although
Locke was not systematic in his thinking, for analytical purposes it may
be useful to attempt a systematic description of his view on democracy.
It should be noted that Locke’s dimensional model of democracy is not
only typological, but evolutionary as well. If we attempt to systematize
Locke’s thinking, these are some of the various dimensions of democracy that Locke spoke and wrote about:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Local democracy
Moral democracy
Political democracy
Economic democracy
Cultural democracy
Racial democracy
Social democracy
Spiritual democracy
World democracy
philosophy of democracy
245
A careful reading of both his published and unpublished works
reveals clear patterns in Locke’s thought. Ordering his dimensional
treatment of democracy in this way is simply a logical extension of
what Locke must have been thinking. Indeed, there may be a correspondence between these dimensions of democracy and Locke’s typology of values. Here is a possible correlation:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Local democracy to Hedonic Values
Moral democracy to Moral and Ethical Values
Political democracy to Logical or Cognitive Values
Economic democracy to Economic Values
Cultural democracy to Aesthetic Values
Racial democracy to Organic Values
Social democracy to Utility Values
Spiritual democracy to Religious Values
World democracy to a Transvaluation of All Values
Locke’s theory of democracy was both historical and phenomenological. It was anchored in history, grounded in philosophy, and
validated by personal experience. Locke’s travels to the South in 1912
with Booker T. Washington and his teaching trips throughout the South
in 1925-1926 as a Bahá’í spokesman impressed upon him the evils
of Jim Crow America and the real prospects of racial justice, healing,
and harmony offered in the Bahá’í experience. His analysis of the race
question was nothing new. But his presentation of the race answer was.
His point of departure was, of course, the historical development or
evolution of democracy.
In his farewell address at Talladega College (1941), Locke presented an evolutionary view of democracy in five phases. He began by
saying that most Americans have a limited and unreflective concept of
democracy, something that is all-too-easily taken for granted:
And now, I should like to talk about something that we all take for granted—
these are things we know least about. The words most frequently used
are words understood least—Democracy is one of those words. Thinking
Negroes, of course, know much about what democracy is not, and have a
more workable conception of what democracy truly means than those who
have just enough to be content with or those to whom it is just a commonplace
concept and way of life. Democracy, of course, is one of the basic human
ideals, but as an ideal of human association it is something quite superior to
246
alain locke: faith & philosophy
any outward institution or any particular society; therefore, not only is government too narrow to express democracy, but government from time to time
must grow to realize democracy.14
Not only is government too narrow a concept of democracy, but
democracy started out historically as a narrow concept as well. Its
ideals were confined to a select few, and they took not just centuries,
but millennia, to enlarge. Its application is still uneven, even if universal in its modern ideological formulations.
Local Democracy: Since there is no one who exemplifies Plato’s ideal
of the philosopher-king, and because politicians are not philosophers,
it is up to pragmatic philosophers to work out a coherent philosophy
of democracy. Such a philosophy may never succeed in influencing
politicians directly, but the philosophers will still find ways to influence
public opinion.
Locke’s own theory was not only coherent, it was comprehensive.
His theory comprehends the rise of Western civilization, encompassing
Christianity in the process. His historical origins of democracy hark
back to Athens, as one would expect. And while it is a breakthrough
concept of profound historical moment, Locke emphasizes its limitations:
It may be a little daring in the time we have at our disposal, but let us put on
seven-league boots and trace democracy—one of the great social concepts.
Both in concept and in practice democracy began in Greece—in the Greek
city state. In its day it was a great achievement, but in that day democracy
was a concept of local citizenship. Our nearest approach to it is the kind of
fellowship we find in college fraternities and sororities in which the bonds
are of “like-mindedness” excluding others. The rim of the Greek concept of
democracy was the barbarian: it was then merely the principle of fraternity
within a narrow, limited circle. There was a dignity accorded to each member
on the basis of membership in the group. It excluded foreigners, slaves and
women. This concept carried over into the Roman empire.15
In staging the evolution of democracy in this way, Locke insinuates an incipient teleology with respect to democracy. As a necessary
preparation for its ultimate destiny as the ideal form of government for
the entire world, democracy needed to be expanded. Its basis had to
widen. And for that to happen, its principles needed to be universalized
by giving them a moral compass and wider scope. The next great stage
in the evolution of democracy, accordingly, was Christianity.
philosophy of democracy
247
Moral Democracy: Christianity, in Locke’s estimate of it, provided the
ideal basis for a moral democracy. Ideally universal, and socially so in
its pristine beginnings, over time Christianity became circumscribed:
Christianity was responsible for the introduction of the next great revision in
the concept of democracy. We owe to Christianity one of the great basic ideals
of democracy—the ideal of the moral equality of human beings. The Christian
ideal of democracy was in its initial stages more democratic than it subsequently became. It always held on to the essential ideal of moral equality of
man within the limits of organized Christianity—anybody else was a potential
member only as he became converted. Christianity was thus a crusading ideal
in bringing humanity into wider association. But the Christian church was a
political institution and in making compromises often failed in bringing about
real human equality.16
Principles are powerful. But they can all too easily be compromised. Early American history illustrates this point. Elsewhere, Locke
shows that Christian America could not, at first, tolerate nonconformists, even if those nonconformists were fellow Christians:
Our American tradition of democracy, let us remember, began merely as a
passionate rationalization of religious non-conformism, the conscientious
demand of a convinced minority about freedom of worship and the moral
liberty of conscience. And at that time, it had not even matured to the adult
principle of abstract freedom of conscience as the religious intolerances of
colonial settlers proved; migrating non-conformists themselves, they still
could not stand the presence of non-conformity in their midst.17
It was really due to the immaturity of the Christian community that
its moral democracy was later compromised by fractious denominations, creating a “house divided.” From the city-state to the nationstate, secular developments again seized the initiative and led the way.
The separation of church and state was a necessary development in the
evolution of democracy. The American system would be based on the
Judeo-Christian ethic, and on a diffuse notion of Providence as well,
but not on Christianity itself. While Christian ethics were viable, the
Christian institutions were not. New institutions had to be brought into
being. These new institutions were based on the Constitution, not on
Christianity.
Political Democracy: The popular understanding of democracy is the
received, traditional notion of a political form of government that is
the most effective conduit of representation and self-government. This
248
alain locke: faith & philosophy
political view of democracy is essentially correct, but represents an
historical development of democracy, in Locke’s view of it.
To define democracy only in terms of its political manifestation is
too narrow, too provincial, and ultimately unreflective. In articulating
political democracy within its evolutionary paradigm, Locke explains
the profound influence of the French Revolution on the establishment
of American democracy. In one speech, Locke states:
Then later came that political and secular strand of colonial experience, which
out of the fight against tyranny and taxation grew into the issue of political
freedom and the liberty of self-government. But even then, when these developments had been fought for and won, and were being institutionalized, it
took another strain of radical thinking imported from Revolutionary France to
consolidate this into a formally democratic doctrine, the fundamental historical creed of American democracy that we know so well and rightly treasure
so highly.18
Locke is consistent in maintaining that political democracy is yet
another stage in the evolution of democracy, albeit a pivotal development that coincides with—and in many ways defines—the establishment of America as we know it today. Neither Greece nor Christianity
were decisive at this stage in the evolution of democracy. It was
the political philosophy of the French that most impressed Thomas
Jefferson and profoundly influenced the development of democracy in
America:
The third great step in democracy came from Protestant lands and people
who evolved the ideal of political equality: (1) equality before the law; (2)
political citizenship. This political democracy pivoted on individualism, and
the freedom of the individual in terms of what we know as the fundamental
rights of man. It found its best expression in the historic formula of “Liberty,
equality and fraternity.”19
That the Constitution of the United States is a “living” document
susceptible of revision allows for the discovery of its undemocratic
elements and provides for its remedy of these inherent defects. Locke
sees this process of amending the Constitution as “progressive” but not
perfect. He appreciates the Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments
as milestones in the evolution of American democracy. But the political
system—not to mention the social manifestations of democracy—are
still far from perfect:
philosophy of democracy
249
In terms of this ideology our country’s government was founded. But for
generations after many of the fundamentals of our democracy were pious
objectives, not fully expressed in practice. In the perspective of democracy’s
long evolution, we must regard our country’s history as a progressive process
of democratization, not yet fully achieved, but certainly progressing importantly in terms of the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, and the
amendment extending the right of franchise to women. It is still imperfect.20
It is all to easy to assume that because the United States is constituted as a political democracy, it is truly democratic. Political democracy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a fully democratic
society. Locke pressed this point on a number of occasions: “If we
are going to have effective democracy in America we must have the
democratic spirit as well as the democratic tradition, we must have
more social democracy and more economic democracy in order to have
or keep political democracy.”21 This statement reveals the cornerstone
of Locke’s philosophy of democracy: that democratic ideals must be
complemented by democratic attitudes. In other words, the democratic
spirit is what really animates a democracy, not simply its institutions
and legal safeguards. Consistent with this analysis is Locke’s progression from political to economic democracy, in which human values (on
which political democracy is ostensibly based) can and must be linked
to economic values.
Economic Democracy: While his theory of democracy encompasses
a wide range of dimensions, first in Locke’s mind were issues of race
and class. Indeed, they were tied to each other in that “white privilege”
required a minority underclass. Although Locke was no economist, he
clearly understood that reality. It was obvious within the black community. Economic reform was a necessary development of democracy:
The fourth crucial stage in the enlargement of democracy began, I think, with
the income tax amendment. Woodrow Wilson tried to put into operation an
extension of democracy which may well have been seriously hindered by
World War number one. The income tax amendment was an initial step in
social [economic] democracy as distinguished from the purely political,—a
step toward economic equality through the partial appropriation of surplus
wealth for the benefit of the commonwealth.
In this country for many generations we thought we had economic
equality. What we really had was a frontier expansion which developed such
surpluses and offered such practical equality of opportunity as to give us the
illusion of economic equality. We later learned that we did not have economic
democracy, and that in order to have this, we must have guaranteed to all citi-
250
alain locke: faith & philosophy
zens certain minimal standards of living and the right to earn a living. Faced
with the crisis of unemployment, the New Deal has been confronted with the
problem of inaugurating some of these beginnings of economic democracy
and of constitutionally implementing a larger measure of social justice. The
whole program of what is now called Social Security is directed toward such
objectives.22
Race and class being his primary concerns, Locke did not try to
improve on political democracy as such. He endorsed Western, liberal
democracy as the basis of all democratic societies and the foundation
of all subsequent democratic developments. Locke took American
political democracy as a point of departure for his discussion of the
other dimensions or extensions of democracy. This rhetorical strategy
served to inspire confidence in his audiences that his message was not
politically subversive. Rather, it was quintessentially American and
was aimed at resolving some of the major contradictions in the practice
of democracy.
Locke spoke of “the two basic economic roots of war—unequal
access to markets and sources of raw materials and widespread differentials of living standards and economic security.”23 Locke taught
that political freedom ought to lead to economic democracy. What
Locke means by economic democracy is an “equitable distribution of
wealth.”24 Redistribution of surplus wealth is part of that process.
At the conclusion of an unpublished essay, “Peace Between Black
and White in the United States,” Locke wrote:
We used to say that Christianity and democracy were both at stake in the
equitable solution of the race question. They were; but they were abstract
ideals that did not bleed when injured. Now we think with more realistic
logic, perhaps, that economic justice cannot stand on one foot; and economic
reconstruction is the dominant demand of the present-day American scene.25
But just as political democracy is a necessary but not a sufficient requirement for a fully democratic society, so also is economic
democracy. But even if, in theory, equality of opportunity existed and
economic equality could be achieved, intercommunal conflict would
not be resolved. America, although prosperous by virtue of its free
market economy, still had to deal with racism (an historical aftereffect
of slavery) and all its social, educational, and economic consequences.
Cultural Democracy: Locke’s next form of democracy is clear enough,
philosophy of democracy
251
although his name for it is not. It is not so much “cultural” as it is “communal.” Locke sums up the problem he is addressing as follows: “Less
acute than race prejudice, but by no means unrelated to it, is the social
bias and discrimination underlying the problem of cultural minorities.
. . . Cultural bias, like that directed against the Mexican, Orientals, the
Jew, the American Indian, often intensifies into racial prejudice.”26 As
an antidote to this social ill, Locke advocates cultural pluralism and
rejects “Americanization,” whether enforced by law or coerced by
social pressures. As Locke explains:
A fifth phase of democracy, even if the preceding four are realized, still
remains to be achieved in order to have a fully balanced society. The present
crisis forces us to realize that without this also democracy may go into total
eclipse. This fifth phase is the struggle for cultural democracy, and rests on
the concept of the right of difference,—that is, the guarantee of the rights of
minorities. Again in the colonial days, we achieved the basic ideals of this
crucial aspect of democracy, but scarcely realized them in fact. Today we have
the same problems of the freedom of speech, worship and conscience, but in
a complex modern situation these things are even more difficult to work out.
One of our greatest problems then today is a real democratic reciprocity for minorities of all sorts, both as over against the so-called majority
and among themselves. These contemporary problems of democracy can be
vividly sensed if we realize that the race question is at the very heart of this
struggle for cultural democracy. Its solution lies beyond even the realization
of political and economic democracy, although of course that solution can
only be reached when we no longer have extreme political inequality and
extreme economic inequality.27
Given the latitude of meaning inherent in Locke’s use of the term
“cultural,” perhaps it would not be redundant to say that “cultural
democracy” can effectively be served by culture. During the heyday of
the Harlem Renaissance, and throughout the post-Renaissance period,
Locke expressed the hope that writers and artists would achieve a
“victory” through “a psychological conquest of racism, prejudice, and
cultural intolerance.”28
Racial Democracy: “The race question,” wrote Locke in 1949, “has
become the number one problem of the world.”29 His next statement
follows from the first: “Race really is a dominant issue of our thinking about democracy.”30 In his small book, World View on Race and
Democracy: A Study Guide in Human Group Relations, Locke puts
this another way: “Of all the barriers limiting democracy, color is the
252
alain locke: faith & philosophy
greatest, whether viewed from a standpoint of national or world democracy.”31 Locke sees this as part of what he calls “total democracy.”32
Locke was alive to the glaring contradiction of racial segregation in
American life, but he was careful in how he presented the naked truth
about the arrested development of American democracy. At a popular
level, an artist can be more effective than a politician. In the wake of the
Red Summer of 1919, in his review of the play And They Lynched Him
on a Tree, Locke refers to Walt Whitman’s celebration of democracy,
but treats his patriotic, exuberant adulation of America as an arrested
stage in the popular understanding of democracy. And so, Locke writes,
the play speaks volumes about the need for a racial democracy:
In the days of its youth, democracy needed, no doubt, the lusty praise and
encomiums of a Walt Whitman; and many of the contemporary works on this
theme [democracy] have obviously the Whitman flavor. But democracy today
needs sober criticism, even courageous chastising, and . . . And They Lynched
Him on a Tree gives our democracy in crisis just that much-needed heroic
challenge and criticism. So doing, it universalizes its particular theme and
expands a Negro tragedy into a purging and inspiring plea for justice and a
fuller democracy. When, on occasion, art rises to this level, it fuses truth with
beauty, and in addition to being a sword for the times it is likely to remain, as
a thing of beauty, a joy forever.33
Prophetically, Locke forged a linkage between racism as an
American problem and racism as a world problem. He explicitly states:
“Race as a symbol of misunderstanding has become fully the great
tragedy of our time, both nationally and internationally.”34
Race is the crux, the litmus test, the hinge on which the entire
project of democracy hangs. In an unpublished report on racism, Locke
writes:
The American race problem may eventually become just a phase and segment
of the world relationship of races, and in slight degree it is already in process
of becoming so. Historically, and in the general American thought of it,
whether among the Negro minority or the white majority, it is thought of as
peculiarly and exclusively a national problem. In some respects, its situations
are relatively unique. . . . So, as between the white and the black peoples, the
American situation is the acid test of the whole problem; and will be crucial in
its outcome for the rest of the world. This makes America, in the judgment of
many, the world’s laboratory for the progressive solution of this great problem
of social adjustment.35
Locke takes Christianity to task for its failure to bring a democratic
“Kingdom of Heaven” on earth, as Jesus preached: “It is a sad irony,”
philosophy of democracy
253
Alain Locke wrote, “that the social institution most committed and
potentially most capable of implementing social democracy should
actually be the weakest and most inconsistent, organized religion.”36
Particularly egregious, in Locke’s view, is what today is termed “selfsegregation”: “Of all the segregated bodies, the racially separate church
is the saddest and most obviously self-contradicting. The separate
Negro church, organized in self-defensive protest, is nonetheless just
as anomalous, though perhaps, more pardonably so.”37
Self-segregation was raised as a Christian issue in Niebuhr’s
famous book, The Social Sources of Denominationalism. “But as
Buell Gallagher points out in Color and Conscience,” Locke continues, “the separate church of any type stands self-contradicted; from
both the religious and the democratic points of view. . . . However, as
Gallagher remarks, it is only in the true democracy of the few pioneer
interracial churches that the movement for a return to first principles
is really vitally alive.”38 Such “pioneer” churches are, in the words of
Gallagher, “not mere experiments, they are a prophecy.”39
Endorsing Gallagher’s clarion call to “bring the whole family of
God within the circle of brotherhood,” Locke comments: “It is because
religious liberals are beginning to think and act in such realistic but at
the same time logical fashion that there is renewed hope for some early
progress toward racial and social and cultural democracy.”40 Here,
Locke is a participant observer. As a “universalist in religion”—as he
describes himself in his psychograph—Locke was one of the religious
liberals of whom he spoke.
From his days at Oxford, Locke knew that his destiny was to be a
“race man” and champion of his people. As an integrationist, however,
Locke’s “race loyalty” was part of a more sweeping and transcendent
vision of interracial unity. In an unpublished reflection on the Harlem
experience, Locke states: “There is the so-called ‘New Negro movement,’ which deliberately aims at capitalizing race consciousness for
group inspiration and cultural development. But it has no political
or separatist motives, and is, in this one respect, different from the
nationalisms of other suppressed minorities.”41 Now that the Harlem
Renaissance is history, Locke’s thought on race relations takes on a
renewed relevance. There is a linkage here between racial equality and
cultural pluralism on both a national level and on a world scale. Racial
democracy can hardly be divorced from world democracy. Indeed, it
was Locke who internationalized the issue of racial justice, which is a
254
alain locke: faith & philosophy
necessary but not sufficient condition for racial democracy.
Social Democracy: Equivalence may be drawn between Locke’s concepts of cultural pluralism and social democracy. In “Reason and Race”
(1947), Locke underscores “the fact that the contemporary world situation clearly indicates that social democracy is the only safe choice for
the survival of Western and Christian civilization.”42
At the Seventeenth Annual Convention and Bahá’í Congress, 5
July 1925, Locke delivered an address:
Dr. Alain LeRoy Locke of Washington, D.C., delivered a polished address,
portraying the great part which America can play in the establishment of
world peace, if alive to its opportunity. The working out of social democracy
can be accomplished here. To this end we should not think in little arcs of
experience, but in the big, comprehensive way. Let our country reform its
own heart and life. Needed reforms cannot be worked out by the action of
any one group, but a fine sense of cooperation must secure universal fellowship. He praised Green Acre, which he declared to be an oasis in the desert
of materiality. He urged all who were favored by this glorious experience to
carry forth its glorious message and thus awaken humanity. In final analysis,
peace cannot exist anywhere without existing everywhere.43
Democracy too is meant to be universal, to be enjoyed and participated in by the whole—not by the part—of any human society. A
democracy that diminishes or excludes segments of its population is
selective at best, and oppressive at worst. The very integrity of democracy itself is put to test by the state of its race relations. At another
Bahá’í-sponsored race amity event, Locke said:
When the merits of different races are understood they will bring a kinship
of humanity. We shall not then consider superficial differences, nor deny
our basic unity. We stand in our own shadows if we deny culture to others
because their culture differs from our own. In religion we are interested only
intellectually and render only lip service if we do not regard the stranger as
our brother.44
Spiritual Democracy: Democracy is more than a political system: it is
a state of mind, a province of the heart, a radiation of attitudes from
which all actions flow. Spiritual democracy is the democracy of the
heart. It is a place, a state of mind, that legislation cannot reach. It is
the interiority of democracy that Locke emphasized:
Constitutional guarantees, legal and civil rights, political machinery of democratic action and control are, of course, the skeleton foundation of democracy,
but you and I know that attitudes are the flesh and blood of democracy, and
philosophy of democracy
255
that without their vital reinforcement democracy is really moribund or dead.
That is my reason for thinking that in any democracy, ours included, the
crucial issue, the test touchstone of democracy is minority status, minority
protection, minority rights.45
Minority rights are a reflection of the will of the majority. Since
democracy is, by definition, based on the rule of the majority, the
voices of racial and ethnic minorities can be muffled, or perhaps only
pierce through the silence with the shrill tenor of protest. Indeed, the
plight of minorities is the touchstone of the truth of those democratic
ideals to which a nation professes. Collectively, minorities function as
the litmus test of democracy, indeed as the very conscience of democracy. During the height of World War II, Locke wrote:
The world crisis has led to the reexamination of the traditional doctrines of
human equality and brotherhood among the leading thinkers of the Christian
churches. As a result, a fresh crusade for aligning organized religion with the
constructive forces of world democracy has come to the vanguard of liberal
religious thought and action. Both intercultural, intersectarian and interfaith
movements have grown out of these considerations.46
In his unpublished Bahá’í essay, Locke expresses his conviction
that “Spiritual Democracy” is the dimension of democracy with the
“most inner meaning.” Locke states:
The gospel for the Twentieth Century rises out of the heart of its greatest
problems . . . Much has been accomplished in the name of Democracy, but
Spiritual Democracy, its largest and most inner meaning, is so below our
common horizons. . . The land that is nearest to material democracy is furthest away from spiritual democracy . . . The word of God is still insistent, . .
. and we have . . . Bahá’u’lláh’s “one great trumpet-call to humanity”: “That
all nations shall become one in faith, and all men as brothers; that the bonds
of affection and unity between the sons of men should be strengthened; that
diversity of religion should cease, and differences of race be annulled . . .
These strifes and this bloodshed and discord must cease, and all men be as
one kindred and family.”
Alain Locke preached a secular “gospel for the Twentieth Century”
that was directly inspired by the ideals of the religion to which he had
converted in 1918, the Bahá’í Faith. Locke’s use of term “gospel” to
express his vision of America as “spiritual democracy” is not unlike
Martin Luther King’s notion of the “gospel of freedom” coined in
his “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” By representing their visions of
256
alain locke: faith & philosophy
America as gospels, these two race leaders sought to sacralize the
secular.
The notion of a spiritual democracy is not without precedent. For
instance, in his essay, “Democratic Vistas,”47 Walt Whitman’s vision
of the New World unfolds in three stages. First there is the foundation
of democracy itself, as enshrined in the twin American scriptures, the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Material civilization follows, with the technological wonders that Whitman praises in
“Passage to India,” in which science plays an almost salvific role. Then
there is spiritual democracy, which for Whitman is religious at a personal, but not an institutional, level. Although a comparison between
the two is limited at best, Whitman’s three stages roughly correspond
with Locke’s concepts of political, economic, and cultural democracy.
Using other criteria, Charles Molesworth has formally compared the
two visionaries in his thought-provoking article, “Alain Locke and Walt
Whitman: Manifestos and National Identity.”48
In a speech he addressed to a Bahá’í-sponsored, race amity convention, Locke expressed his conviction that there is, indeed, a “spiritual”
dimension of democracy. Harking back to the Greek notion of the “barbarian” at the inception of democracy in the Greek city-state, Locke
observes:
Let us first consider the question of morals. Our ideas of humanity are largely
governed by the impressions of the small fraction we see. But it takes many a
type to round out humanity. Cultural and spiritual democracy are impossible
unless all humanity comes under its scope. Spiritual perception is necessary
to understand the merits of others. For that which makes a man a barbarian,
as we understand him, is the difference between him and ourselves. This difference measures the degree of our understanding. This is not his failing, but
ours.49
Locke’s ideal of “spiritual democracy” appears primarily in his
Bahá’í essays and speeches. It was probably inspired—and certainly
catalyzed—by his Bahá’í ideals. In a secularized translation of his own
Bahá’í thought, Locke spoke of the dawn of “a new age of reason on
the subject of race.”50 Locke’s concept of spiritual democracy synthesizes his social philosophy.
Spiritual democracy, of course, pivots on the notion of spirituality itself. Throughout his writings, Locke differentiates “spiritual”
and “material” spheres of human activity. At the conclusion of his
philosophy of democracy
257
essay, “Enter the New Negro” (1925), Locke states: “. . . if in our lifetime the Negro should not be able to celebrate his full initiation into
American democracy, he can at least, on the warrant of these things,
celebrate the attainment of a significant and satisfying new phase of
group development, and with a spiritual Coming of Age.” This spiritual
awakening that was stirring within the African American community
was not defined by any specific religious reference, but represented the
“spirit”—that is, consciousness—of a collective self-image.
So far as I can tell, Locke did not mention the Bahá’í Faith by
name outside of a Bahá’í venue or context. As universal and egalitarian as were his Bahá’í ideals, Locke took the far more practical route
of transposing those ideals into philosophical discourse, educational
reform, and cultural criticism. Cultural pluralism was Locke’s secular
gospel. Cultural pluralism provided the social philosophy most needed
for democracy,51 not just in America, but across the world. Cultural
pluralism was thus “the philosophic faith that Locke became a spokesman for.”52 As his primary philosophical framework, cultural pluralism
would make possible a general theory of “unity in diversity.”53
One of the keys to Locke’s thought and role as a cultural pluralist is that he did not write or act from within a parochial perspective.
Yet the more one studies him, the more one is struck by the resonance
that reverberates between Locke’s secular and religious speeches and
essays—the synergy between his philosophical and faith commitments.
World Democracy: On a world scale, democracy is global self-governance. Locke’s universalism is most evident in his discussion of world
democracy, for which “internationalism” appears to be a synonym.
World democracy is really the logical and pragmatic expansion of the
democratic principle, from a national to an international level. “World
democracy,” writes Locke, “presupposes the recognition of the essential equality of all peoples and the potential parity of all cultures.”54 On
a radio program, “Woman’s Page of the Air” with Adelaide Hawley,
broadcast on 6 August 1944, while World War II was at its height,
Locke said: “Just as the foundation of democracy as a national principle
made necessary the declaration of the basic equality of persons, so the
founding of international democracy must guarantee the basic equality
of human groups.”55
258
alain locke: faith & philosophy
It is at this level that democracy attains its ultimate fruition, and
finds its fullest expression. Both as a cultural pluralist and as a Bahá’í,
Locke was a supporter of world federalism in principle and of the
United Nations in practice. It was the phoenix that rose out of the ashes
of the conflagration of World War II, which Locke regarded as a global
civil war. “Democracy at war,” Locke declared, “must more clearly
outline its position and more unequivocally avow its principles.”56 Of
the international body, Locke writes:
Significantly enough, the Phalanx of the United Nations unites an unprecedented assemblage of the races, cultures and peoples of the world. Could
this war-born assemblage be welded by a constructive peace into an effective world order—one based on the essential parity of peoples and a truly
democratic reciprocity of cultures—world democracy would be within reach
of attainment.57
Moreover, the United States, with its composite population sampling all
the human races and peoples, is by way of being almost a United Nations by
herself. We could so easily and naturally, with the right dynamic, become the
focus of thoroughgoing internationalism—thereby realizing, one might say,
our manifest destiny.58
Accordingly, Locke noted, “we must find common human denominators of liberty, equality, and fraternity for humanity at large.”59 In
the quest to universalize democracy, “color becomes the acid test of
our fundamental honesty in putting into practice the democracy we
preach.”60
In his essay, “The Unfinished Business of Democracy,” written
during World War II, Locke eloquently defines America’s world role:
To the farsighted, the future is not divorced from present action. Every constructive step in social democracy, in social justice, is not only net gain for the
present but assured dividends for the future. So linked up are the home and
foreign fronts of race, that it matters little where the moves begin. Any gain is
a world gain; any setback, a world loss. . . .
Conversely, a lynching in Mississippi, over and above its enemy echo on
a Tokyo short-wave, has as much symbolic meaning in Chunking, Bombay,
and Brazzaville as it has in tragic reality in the hearts of Negro Americans.
Steps taken to abolish second-class citizenship in Florida or to democratize
the American army or our war industry have, on the other hand, favorable
repercussions almost to the ends of the earth. It helps build up not necessarily a democracy of extended political power and domain, but a much more
needed democracy of full moral stature, world influence and world respect. It
is such unfinished business, foreign and domestic, that waits on democracy’s
calendar today.61
philosophy of democracy
259
Locke’s theory of democracy, with its primary focus on America,
may be seen as a secular application of the Bahá’í vision of America’s
destiny to lead all nations spiritually, with which Locke himself was
probably conversant. In an unpublished letter, dated 1 August 1934 to
Shoghi Effendi, Locke spoke of the “factionalism of race” in America,
and of his resolve to be “a modifying influence to radical sectionalism
and to increasing materialistic trends—and in this indirect way to serve
the [Bahá’í] Cause and help forward the universal principles.”62 In his
essay, “Unity through Diversity: A Bahá’í Principle” (1933), Locke
effectively “translated” Bahá’í ideals “into more secular terms” so that
“a greater practical range will be opened up for the application and final
vindication of the Bahá’í principles” in order to achieve “a positive
multiplication of spiritual power.” Locke’s philosophy of democracy,
as it relates to America and world peace, may therefore be seen as an
extension of his Bahá’í values.
Locke forged a vital linkage between American democracy and
world democracy. Exploring the relationship between America and
world democracy, Locke postulated that “World leadership . . . must
be moral leadership in democratic concert with humanity at large.”63
In so doing, America must perforce “abandon racial and cultural prejudice.”64 “A world democracy,” wrote Locke, “cannot possibly tolerate
what a national democracy has countenanced too long.”65
World peace can only be established on a foundation of principle of
the oneness of humankind—harmony of races, religions, and nations.
All peace-building policies and instruments depend on this. This is
Locke’s vision of America and his prescription for world peace: “The
moral imperatives of a new world order are an internationally limited
idea of national sovereignty, a non-monopolistic and culturally tolerant
concept of race and religious loyalties freed of sectarian bigotry.”66
In “Pluralism and Intellectual Democracy” (1942), Locke wrote that:
“The intellectual core of the problems of the peace . . . will be the discovery of the necessary common denominators and the basic equivalences involved in a democratic world order or democracy on a world
scale.”67
Conclusions: This inventory of the dimensions of democracy in
Locke’s philosophy does not exhaust his expansive uses of the term
and the concept. Perhaps all these are summed up in Locke’s felicitous
260
alain locke: faith & philosophy
expression: “equalitarian democracy.”68 Doubtless, there is a great deal
of overlap in the various terms of Locke’s nomenclature. Yet there is
a certain degree of consistency in it. His evolutionary, developmental
view of democracy remains consistent. “All of these enlargements of
democratic thought and practice in the perspective of one trained to
expect democracy to evolve,” reflects Locke, “are viewed and accepted
in a natural and meaningful way as part of a necessary process.69
This is not a taxonomy in the political, scientific sense. Locke had
other concepts of democracy as well. For example, on 28 May 1946,
in his commencement address at the University of Wisconsin High
School, Locke spoke of “the gallant natural democracy of youth.”70
Locke used the term “practical democracy” in a variety of contexts.
For instance, in reporting on a Bahá’í-sponsored race amity convention,
Locke wrote: “Washington, which the penetrating vision of Abdul Baha
in 1912 saw as the crux of the race problem and therefore of practical
democracy in America, was for that reason selected as the place for
the first convention under Bahai auspices for amity in inter-racial relations.”71
“Creative democracy” is Locke’s term for visionary and revisionist
efforts to further align principle with practice. He spoke of “the successive maturing of the democratic tradition in America” and of the
“enlargements of democratic thought and practice.”72
Locke also spoke of “intellectual democracy.” In his essay,
“Pluralism and Intellectual Democracy,” originally published in the
proceedings of the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion
(1942), Locke defines the social responsibility of the scholar and
public intellectual. “What intellectuals can do for the extension of the
democratic way of life is to discipline our thinking critically into some
sort of realistic world-mindedness. Broadening our cultural values and
tempering our orthodoxies is of infinitely more service to enlarged
democracy than direct praise and advocacy of democracy itself. For
until broadened by relativism and reconstructed accordingly, our
current democratic traditions and practice are not ready for world-wide
application. Considerable political and cultural dogmatism, in the form
of culture bias, nation worship, and racism, still stands in the way and
must first be invalidated and abandoned.”73 While “intellectual democracy” is not the province of scholars alone, they are public intellectuals
who wield considerable influence.
Locke was gifted with a universal perspective. His vision was
philosophy of democracy
261
world embracing. He saw the American racial crisis as a problem of
world-historical proportions. Locke used historical retrospect to create
new future prospects for democracy. In The Negro in America (1933),
Locke wrote:
If they will but see it, because of their complementary qualities, the two racial
groups have great spiritual need, one of the other. It would truly be significant
in the history of human culture, if two races so diverse should so happily
collaborate, and the one return for the gift of a great civilization the reciprocal gift of the spiritual cross-fertilization of a great and distinctive national
culture.74
Locke inwardly felt that what America really needed was to
embrace Bahá’í principles (though not necessarily the Bahá’í Faith
itself). “Dr. Alain Locke of Washington, D.C., speaking on the subject,
‘America’s Part in World Peace’,” according to a news report, “pointed
out the priceless value and the great necessity of a good example if
America is to perform a real service to the world.” He said:
America’s democracy must begin at home with a spiritual fusion of all her
constituent peoples in brotherhood, and in an actual mutuality of life. Until
democracy is worked out in the vital small scale of practical human relations, it can never, except as an empty formula, prevail on the national or
international basis. Until it establishes itself in human hearts, it can never
institutionally flourish. Moreover, America’s reputation and moral influence
in the world depends on the successful achievement of this vital spiritual
democracy within the lifetime of the present generation. (Material civilization alone does not safeguard the progress of a nation.) Bahá’í Principles and
the leavening of our national life with their power, is to be regarded as the
salvation of democracy. In this way only can the fine professions of American
ideals be realized.75
Locke was America’s ambassador of democracy to America itself.
His theory of democracy was both evolutionary and multi-dimensional.
It would only be a matter of time until the various aspects of that theory
would fall into focus and be articulated in a more coherent form. As
theoretically elegant as it was, Locke’s philosophy of democracy
always had a practical emphasis and application. And for that reason, it
can never be said that his philosophy ended in mere words. “But now,
it seems to me,” Locke told an audience of social workers in 1938,
“the soundest, wisest and most appropriate slogan,—if we must have a
slogan, is to americanize Americans in their social attitudes and behav-
262
alain locke: faith & philosophy
ior, to establish democracy in the heart of our social relations.”76 Once
that happens, America could have the requisite moral authority to adopt
its “world role.”77 Locke’s philosophy of democracy, in essence, was
to realize the American ideal in all its dimensions—locally, morally,
politically, economically, culturally, interracially and socially, spiritually, globally, naturally, intellectually, practically, and creatively.
Notes
1. Harlan Ober, “The Bahá’í Congress at Green Acre,” Star of the West, Vol
16, no. 1 (April 1925) p. 525. Courtesy of Jeff Palermo, e-mail message, 1 May
2002.
2. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-124, Folder 15 (“The Preservation of
the Democratic Ideal”) p. 5.
3. Alain Locke, “Enter the New Negro,” Survey Graphic, Vol. 53, no. 11 (1
March 1925) p. 631-34. Reprinted in Jeffrey C. Stewart, ed., The Critical Temper
of Alain Locke, p. 9.
4. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-105, Folder 33 ([re: America’s position
in world affairs in relation to race.] Speech over station KMYR, Denver. 6 August
1944).
5. Ibid.
6. Alain Locke, “Reason and Race,” in Stewart, The Critical Temper of Alain
Locke, 327.
7. Ibid., p. 326.
8. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-112, Folder 6: “Concept of Democracy.”
Outline of lecture for Philosophy of Democracy course. 10 December 1947.
9. Leonard Harris, “Preface,” in The Critical Pragmatism of Alain Locke, p. xi.
10. Judith Green, “Cosmopolitan Unity Amidst Valued Diversity: Alain Locke’s
Vision of Deeply Democratic Transformation,” in Deep Democracy: Community,
Diversity, and Transformation (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999) pp.
95-134. Other previous literature will be cited throughout.
11. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-112, Folder 6 (“Concept of Democracy.”).
Outline of lecture for Philosophy of Democracy course. 10 December 1947, p. 1.
12. Locke, Race Contacts and Interracial Relations, p. 66.
13. Chicago Defender, no date available.
14. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-113, Folder 4 ([re: democracy]
Departure speech to students at Talladega College, 1941) p. 1.
15. Ibid., pp. 1-2.
16. Ibid., p. 2.
17. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-112, Folder 18 (“Creative Democracy”),
1.
18. Ibid., p. 2.
19. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-113, Folder 4 ([re: democracy]
Departure speech to students at Talladega College, 1941) p. 2.
20. Ibid., pp. 2-3.
21. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-124, Folder 15 (“The Preservation of
philosophy of democracy
263
the Democratic Ideal”) p. 5.
21. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-113, Folder 4 ([re: democracy]
Departure speech to students at Talladega College, 1941) pp. 3-4.
23. Alain Locke, “Democracy Faces a World Order,” Harvard Educational
Review, Vol. 12, no. 2 (March 1942) pp. 124.
24. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-112, Folder 6 (“Concept of Democracy”).
Outline of lecture for Philosophy of Democracy course. 10 December 1947, p. 1.
25. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-123: Folder 19 (“Peace Between Black
and White in the United States”).
26. Alain Locke, World View on Race and Democracy: A Study Guide in Human
Group Relations (Chicago: American Library Association, 1943) p. 5.
27. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-113, Folder 4 ([re: democracy]
Departure speech to students at Talladega College, 1941) pp. 4-5.
28. Alain Locke, “Reason and Race,” in Stewart, The Critical Temper of Alain
Locke, p. 320.
29. Alain Locke, “Dawn Patrol: A Review of the Literature of the Negro for
1948,” Phylon, Vol. 10, no. 1-2 (1949) pp. 5-14; 167-72. Reprinted in Jeffrey C.
Stewart, The Critical Temper of Alain Locke: A Selection of His Essays on Art and
Culture (New York and London: Garland, 1983) pp. 337-49 [337].
30. Alain Locke, “Reason and Race,” in Stewart, The Critical Temper of Alain
Locke, p. 325.
31. Alain Locke, World View on Race and Democracy, p. 1.
32. Ibid., p. 2, citing Howard H. Brinton (no reference given).
33. Alain Locke, “Ballad for Democracy,” Opportunity: Journal of Negro Life ,
Vol. 18, no. 8 (August 1940) p. 228, cited by Wayne D. Shirley, “William Grant
Still’s Choral Ballad ‘And They Lynched Him on a Tree’,” American Music, Vol.
12, no. 4 (Winter 1994) pp. 425-37.
34. Alain Locke, “A Critical Retrospect of the Literature of the Negro for 1947,”
Phylon, Vol. 9, no. 1 (1948) pp. 3-12. Reprinted in Jeffrey C. Stewart, The Critical
Temper of Alain Locke: A Selection of His Essays on Art and Culture (New York
and London: Garland, 1983) pp. 329-36 [329].
35. “[Through Mrs. Ruth Cranston] Report on The Race Problem in the American
Area.” Alain Locke Papers, MSRC. Box 164-43, Folder 3 (Writings by Locke—
Notes[:] Christianity, spirituality, religion.) p. 1.
36. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-105, Folder 34 (“American Education’s
Latest Task: Teaching Democracy.” [incomplete]) p. 8.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid. Locke here refers to the book, Color and Conscience: The Irrepressible
Conflict (1946) by Buell Gordon Gallagher (1904-1979).
39. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-105, Folder 34 (“American Education’s
Latest Task: Teaching Democracy.” [incomplete]) p. 8.
40 Ibid.
41. “[Through Mrs. Ruth Cranston] Report on The Race Problem in the American
Area.” Alain Locke Papers, MSRC. Box 164-43, Folder 3 (Writings by Locke—
Notes[:] Christianity, spirituality, religion.) p. 3.
42. Alain Locke, “Reason and Race,” in Stewart, The Critical Temper of Alain
Locke, p. 327.
43. “The Seventeenth Annual Convention and Baha’i Congress,” Baha’i News
264
alain locke: faith & philosophy
Letter, No. 6 (1925) p. 3.
44. Louis Gregory, “A Convention for Amity,” p. 273.
45. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-124, Folder 15 (“The Preservation of
the Democratic Ideal”) pp. 1-2.
46. Alain Locke, World View on Race and Democracy, p. 18.
46. Walt Whitman, “Democratic Vistas,” in Leaves Of Grass And Selected
Prose, ed. Ellman Crasnow, pp. 505-59 (London: Orion Publishing Group, 1993
[1871]), cited by Jim Garrison (Virginia Tech.), “Reflections on Whitman, Dewey,
and Educational Reform: Reclaiming ‘Democratic Vistas’,” Society for the
Advancement of American Philosophy, 29th Annual Meeting, Portland, Maine,
March 7-9, 2002. Online: www.american-philosophy.org/2002_Conference
/2002_papers/tp-5.htm.
48. Molesworth, “Alain Locke and Walt Whitman.”
49. Louis Gregory, “A Convention for Amity,” The Bahá’í Magazine, Star of the
West, Vol 15, pp. 272.
50. Alain Locke, “Reason and Race,” Phylon, Vol. 8, no. 1 (1947) pp. 17-27.
Reprinted in Jeffrey C. Stewart, The Critical Temper of Alain Locke: A Selection of
His Essays on Art and Culture (New York and London: Garland, 1983), pp. 319-27
[327].
51. Mason, “Social Philosophy of Alain Locke,” p. 26.
52. Kallen, “Alain Locke and Cultural Pluralism,” p. 127.
53. Green, “Alain Locke’s Multicultural Philosophy of Value,” p. 87.
54. Alain Locke, World View on Race and Democracy, p. 14.
55. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-105, Folder 33: [re: America’s position
in world affairs in relation to race.] Speech over station KMYR, Denver. 6 August
1944, p. 6.
56. Alain Locke, “Democracy Faces a World Order,” p. 122.
57. Alain Locke, “The Unfinished Business of Democracy,” Survey Graphic:
Magazine of Social Interpretation, Vol. 31 (November 1942) pp. 455-61 [456].
58. Ibid., p. 458.
59. Ibid., p. 455.
60. Ibid., p. 456.
61. Ibid., p. 459.
62. Locke to to Shoghi Effendi, 1 August 1934, Bahá’í World Center Archives.
Courtesy of the Universal House of Justice.
63. Locke, “The Unfinished Business of Democracy,” p. 459.
64. Ibid.
65. Locke, “Democracy Faces a World Order,” p. 128.
66. Harris, The Philosophy of Alain Locke, p. 152.
67. Ibid., p. 62.
68. Alain Locke, World View on Race and Democracy, p. 12.
69. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-112, Folder 18 (“Creative Democracy”)
1.
70. See Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-123, Folder 8 (“On Becoming
World Citizens.” Commencement Address at University of Wisconsin High
School, 28 May 1946. [typescript]).
71. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-176, Folder 13 (Bahá’í Faith).
72. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-112, Folder 18 (“Creative Democracy”)
philosophy of democracy
265
p. 3.
73. Harris, The Philosophy of Alain Locke, p. 63.
74. Alain Locke, The Negro in America (Chicago: American Library Association,
1933) p. 50.
75. Harlan Ober, “The Bahá’í Congress at Green Acre,” Star of the West, vol. 16,
no. 1 (April 1925) p. 525. Courtesy of Jeff Palermo, e-mail message, 1 May 2002.
76. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-124, Folder 15 (“The Preservation of
the Democratic Ideal”) p. 5.
77. Alain Locke, “Democracy Faces a World Order,”p. 126.
STUDIO PORTRAIT OF ALAIN LOCKE
Courtesy of the Moorland-Spingarn Research Center, Howard University
Chapter Eleven
Concluding Observations
In the context of today, accordingly, world citizenship means more than
enlightened citizenship transforming narrow nationalism into enlightened political nationalism, although it does mean that importantly. It
also means an equally important crusade for world culture with its
enlarged tolerances and understandings and on the moral plane, at least
a world-wide truce, if not eventually a world-scale alliance of the major
religions.1
—Alain Locke
In terms of his impact on American history, Alain Locke is certainly the
most important Western Bahá’í to date. While his place in the history of
the Bahá’í Faith in America is not insignificant, Locke is generally not
well known within the Bahá’í community itself and his Bahá’í identity
in the academic world has remained little more than a footnote until
now. As several Locke scholars have explained, part of the historical
difficulty in providing a proper assessment of Locke’s importance is
the fact that so much of his writing remains unpublished. To illuminate
his roles as a Bahá’í race-relations activist, leading African American
intellectual, and philosopher of democracy, this study has relied on
unpublished archival material to supply some of the missing pieces.
This book has stressed Locke’s contributions both as a Bahá’í and
as a cultural pluralist. Largely through his Bahá’í orientation, Locke
brought both his faith and philosophy to bear on what he saw as the
most challenging issues of the day.
267
268
alain locke: faith & philosophy
This study seeks to demonstrate how Locke’s Bahá’í ideals were
integrated into his philosophy and vice versa. This synergy between
Locke’s religious profession as a Bahá’í and his vocation as a philosopher is critical. That synergy is best demonstrated through a comparison of Locke’s confessional (Bahá’í) essays and his professional
(academic) essays.
Locke as a Bahá’í: For more than three decades, Locke would work
within the Bahá’í community to foster ideal race relations, which
Bahá’ís first referred to as “race amity” and later as “race unity.” This
fact will come as a surprise to many. Most historians either ignore or,
at best, make only passing mention of Locke’s Bahá’í affiliation—and
may even express doubt that Locke was ever an enrolled Bahá’í. One
reason is that, outside of Bahá’í venues, Locke made practically no
mention of the Bahá’í Faith. He seems to explain this by saying that
Bahá’ís need to export their principles and, in effect, secularize them.
Only in this way can Bahá’ís ever hope to exert any real social influence. This was the pragmatist in Locke, which constrained and disciplined his idealism.
That Locke was a committed Bahá’í over a long period of time—
for over half his life—is not to say that he had an idealized view of
the Bahá’í community. Locke had alternating periods of affinity and
estrangement, close friends and “personality clashes,” time and lack of
it, and so on. At home, he was often over-committed and overbooked.
So long as he could afford to, he traveled abroad annually, usually
during the summer. There were moments—considerable stretches
of time—when Locke seemed to give up on the Bahá’í community.
Deeply committed at the level of principle, Locke experienced crises
of faith, owing to stagnation in the race amity work. The fact that
Locke nonetheless continued to render valuable services to the “Bahá’í
Cause” is a testament to the depth of his convictions, and to his enduring loyalty to his religion.
Locke’s Bahá’í service included his participation in a “Convention
for Amity Between the Colored and White Races” which took place
in Washington, D.C., 19-21 May 1921. Accordingly, the Washington
Bahá’í community became the point of effective origin for Bahá’í
race-unity initiatives across America. While his activity as a Bahá’í
was sporadic, Locke’s role in planning and executing the Race Amity
concluding observations
269
conferences was as central as it was sustained over the duration of years
of committee service. Almost certainly his role was critical.
For various personal reasons, Locke later withdrew from active
involvement in the Washington Bahá’í community. For one thing,
Locke preferred New York to Washington. In a letter to Countee Cullen,
Locke opines: “I hope if you ever come to Washington to teach, it won’t
be the same Washington which is at my throat or rather weighing
down on my spirit,—for it is almost impossible to find buoyancy and
inspiration in the place. New York is infinitely better, even Harlem.”2
But there were moments when Locke publicly identified himself as a
Bahá’í. It must have been with Locke’s permission that his photograph
appeared in an Ebony magazine article late in his life (1952).3
Locke as a Philosopher of Religion: American pragmatism dethroned
epistemology and conceptualized knowledge as subjective, social, and
communal. Locke anchored philosophy in human values and formulated his own theory of relativity with regard to their philosophical
and social implications. The title of one of Locke’s lectures in later
life captures the essence of his philosophy: “Cultural Pluralism: A
New Americanism.” Locke gave this lecture on 8 November 1950, at
Howard University.4 We should hasten to add that, for Locke, integration was not assimilation. To the end of his life, he held to the Bahá’í
principle of unity in diversity, which he reformulated as “unity through
diversity.”
Locke was a professional philosopher. Besides presiding as chair
of the Department of Philosophy at Howard University, Locke served
as visiting professor of philosophy at Fisk University (1927-28),
the University of Wisconsin (1945-46), The New School for Social
Research in New York (1947), the College of the City of New York
(1948), and the Salzburg Seminar in American Studies. Locke was
also an inter-American exchange professor to Haiti in 1943 for three
months. There has recently been a revival of interest in Locke’s philosophy, much of which remains unpublished.
Scholarship has largely glossed over Locke’s perspective on religion. Yet there are references to religion throughout both his published
and unpublished writings. According to Locke, philosophy ought to be
mindful of the importance of religion:
270
alain locke: faith & philosophy
It is of the utmost importance to supplement the many secular trends
toward world order by religious movements and moral perspectives of similar
scope and outlook. Although there has been considerable organizational initiative and effort in world-wide religious rapprochement, there still is little
internal renouncing on the part of religious bodies of their sectarian parochialisms and their mutually conflicting claims.
Yet here obviously is the crux of the whole issue: if the brotherhood of
man is an inescapable corollary of the ‘fatherhood of God’ principle, so also
is the confraternity of religions. The enlightened religion must learn,— that
the realistic way to become a world religion is not through world pretensions
and world rivalry, but through promoting world-wide peace and understanding and moral cooperation of all sorts on a world-scale.
On that outcome hangs a goodly part of any real ideological peace, since
religion, for all its universalistic claims, instead of being a universalizer has
so often been the prime weapon in the rationalization of partisan strife and
limited attitudes and loyalties.5
As early as his dissertation, Locke recognized the integral place
religion has in human society. Religion figures prominently in Locke’s
paradigm of values. Locke’s model can be represented by the acronym
HEALER: (1) Hedonic; (2) Economic; (3) Artistic; (4) Logical; (5)
Ethical; (6) Religious. In his 1935 essay, “Values and Imperatives,”
however, Locke reduces his taxonomy to four types of values, which I
represent with the acronym REAL: (1) Religious; (2) Ethical/Moral; (3)
Aesthetic/Artistic; (4) Logical/Scientific. In addition, Locke’s Bahá’í
World essays not only furnish his most complete statement of Bahá’í
principle, they are his most complete statements on religion itself.
Locke as Bahá’í Philosopher: Philosophy has traditionally systematized religious thinking. Locke’s religious works (his Bahá’í World
essays) were certainly informed by his philosophy. Indeed, the presence
of key philosophical concepts in Locke’s Bahá’í essays accentuates the
religio-philosophical (Bahá’í/cultural-relativist) synergy. “What we
need to learn most,” writes Locke, “is how to discover unity and spiritual equivalence underneath the differences which at present so disunite
and sunder us, and how to establish some basic spiritual reciprocity on
the principle of unity in diversity.”6
“The purity of Bahá’í principles,” Locke argues, “must be gauged
by their universality on this practical plane.” Locke then poses a challenge in the form of a test of authenticity: “Do they [Bahá’í principles]
fraternize and fuse with all their kindred expressions? Are they happy
in their collaborations that advocate other sanctions but advance toward
concluding observations
271
the same spiritual goal? Can they reduce themselves to the vital common
denominators necessary to mediate between other partisan loyalties?”
This is Locke’s philosophy transposed within a Bahá’í value system.7
Bahá’í values suffuse Locke’s philosophical thought. Judith Green
observes: “Locke’s work shows the influence of serious engagements
with Marxism, with diverse religious and spiritual traditions including,
among others, Christianity, Buddhism, and Bahá’í.”8 This appears to
underestimate the importance of the Bahá’í influence. Locke transposed Bahá’í principles of unity into his philosophy. As Washington
notes: “During the latter part of his career, he accepted the Bahá’í faith
and attempted to integrate it into his own philosophy of values.”9
It should also be borne is mind that, despite his intense commitment to Bahá’í principles, only rarely did Locke directly cite the Bahá’í
writings. Although he acknowledged that “there is no escaping the historical evidences of its [i.e., unity through diversity’s] early advocacy
and its uncompromising adoption by the Bahá’í prophets and teachers,”
Locke’s advice to Bahá’ís was that “the intelligent, loyal Bahá’í should
stress not the source, but the importance of the idea, and rejoice not in
the originality and uniqueness of the principle but rather in its prevalence and practicality.” Locke continues: “The idea has to be translated
into every important province of modern life and thought, and in many
of these must seem to be independently derived and justified.”10 This
statement signals Locke’s intention and method: to apply Bahá’í principles to his own “province of modern life and thought”—philosophy.
“For Locke, cultural pluralism and cultural relativism,” according
to Mason, “both have their foundation in the Bahá’í principle of unity
in diversity.”11 In demonstrating a thematic simultaneity in Locke’s
religious and philosophical writings, Mason says: “In the following
examination of Locke’s social philosophy I hope to demonstrate fully
that Locke was, theoretically and practically, concerned with the very
social issues stressed in the Bahá’í Faith: justice, equality, nonviolence,
tolerance, and racial and ideological peace.”12 Mason was not alone in
making this assertion. Kenneth Stikkers suggests:
The Bahá’í religion provided Locke the concrete experience of unity in diversity, for a central teaching of that faith is that the Word of God is essentially
one but is spoken differently through the prophets of the various religions
of the world, in ways relative to unique sociohistorical conditions. Locke
expressed the Bahá’í principle with this metaphor: “Think of reality as a
central fact and a white light broken up by the prism of human nature into a
spectrum of values.”13
272
alain locke: faith & philosophy
This has implications for future Locke studies, for African American
history, for Bahá’í studies, and for mainstream American philosophy in
general.
Unity in diversity is a Bahá’í principle that Locke transposed into
his philosophy: “It is just at this juncture that the idea of unity in diversity seems to me to become relevant, and to offer a spiritual common
denominator of both ideal and practical efficacy.” Locke wanted
to replace absolutes with universalisms: “Even though it is not yet
accepted as a general principle, as a general desire and an ideal goal, the
demand for universality is beyond doubt the most characteristic modern
thing in the realm of spiritual values, and in the world of the mind that
reflects this realm.” Through the vehicle of philosophy, Locke replaced
“identity” with “equivalence” and “difference” with “unity in diversity.”14 In so doing, Locke offered “a solution reconciling nationalism
with internationalism, racialism with universalism.”15
Both as a philosopher and as a Bahá’í, Locke, as a matter of principle, envisioned a series of “progressive integrations” that would
progress “in due course” and “step by step, from an initial stage of
cultural tolerance, mutual respect, reciprocal exchange, some specific
communities of agreement and, finally, commonality of purpose and
action.”16 But since he was not a thoroughly systematic thinker, we
cannot read this statement with full confidence in its sequence. Green
calls this a “peacemaking democratic transformation . . . by stage-wise
progression.”17
It is clear that Locke wanted to make a contribution to world
peace as well. If intellectuals were inspired with the same vision and
could agree on a common paradigm, their leadership had the potential
to further that aim. In his essay, “Cultural Relativism and Ideological
Peace,” Locke states: “Cultural relativism may become an important
source for ideological peace” and, indeed, may serve “as a possible
ideological peacemaker.” “Cultural relativism” Locke believed, “can
become a very constructive philosophy by way of integrating values
and value systems.” “In looking for cultural agreements on a world
scale,” Locke further explained, “we shall probably have to content
ourselves with agreement of the common-denominator type and with
‘unity in diversity’ discovered in the search for unities of a functional
rather than a content character, and therefore of a pragmatic rather than
an ideological sort.” In other words, Locke has proposed a formula for
concluding observations
273
promoting cultural relativism as a “realistic instrument of social reorientation and cultural enlightenment.”18
Locke gave specific reasons as to why this program might work.
For Locke, cultural relativism had “constructive potentialities”19 and
offered new hope for ideological peace. For relativism to work, it
first had to be implemented. Just how would one begin to carry out a
program of cultural relativity? Locke had such a plan. Its rationale is
developed alongside its strategy. There were three stages in his plan,
each of which was intended to have a calculated, cumulative result.
The three stages were: (1) cultural equivalence; (2) reciprocity; and (3)
limited cultural convertibility.
In his efforts to universalize philosophy, Locke sought to promote
intercultural understanding. He thought that scholars (especially “cultural anthropologists”) ought to lead the way through a systematic
process of conceptual translation based on formal comparison:
The principle of cultural equivalence, under which we would more widely
press the search for functional similarities in our analyses and comparisons
of human cultures, thus offsetting our traditional and excessive emphasis
upon cultural difference. Such functional equivalences, which we might term
“culture-cognates” or “culture-correlates,” discovered underneath deceptive
but superficial institutional divergence, would provide objective but soundly
neutral common denominators for intercultural understanding and cooperation.20
The search for cultural counterparts is, for Locke, a sound way of
trying to make sense of the bewildering diversity of societal norms and
mores that, upon investigation, reveal a recognizable logic. “Functional
equivalence” for Locke, seems to be synonymous with “real basic similarity” in values. Similarities are seen in function rather than form.21
Beyond tolerance, but assuming notions of equivalence based on
“loyalty to loyalty,” is a second concept: reciprocity. Reciprocity promotes cross-cultural dialogue and cooperation. “Social reciprocity for
value loyalties,” writes Locke, “is but a new name for the old virtue
of tolerance, yet it does bring the question of tolerance down from
the lofty thin air of idealism and chivalry to the plane of enlightened
self-interest and the practical possibilities of value-sharing.”22 This is
an understatement, for reciprocity is something much more than mere
toleration for the purpose of reducing intercommunal conflict:
The principle of cultural reciprocity, which, by a general recognition of the
reciprocal character of all contacts between cultures and the fact that all
modern cultures are highly composite ones, would invalidate the lump esti-
274
alain locke: faith & philosophy
mating of cultures in terms of generalized, en bloc assumptions of superiority
and inferiority, substituting scientific, point-by-point comparisons with their
correspondingly limited, specific, and objectively verifiable superiorities or
inferiorities.23
This is both a historical as well as procedural statement. Cultures
are syncretistic. A simple realization of this fact should suffice to
dispel pretensions of cultural superiority. This new virtue—reciprocity—is tolerance transformed into a real exchange of values. As Moses
observes: “Locke’s principle of reciprocity first emerges as a historical
law that may be discerned through careful consideration of what has
contributed to civilized progress in many an age.”24 Locke translates
this historical law into a present-day ethic. In this part of Locke’s plan
comparisons must become very specific. The “culture-correlates”
would then be weighed, and even judged as to their relative superiority
or inferiority. There would be particular cultural values that could be
exported and taken up within other modern cultures, which are themselves composites in any case.
As a student of history, Locke foresaw the strong possibility that
culture might selectively adopt a foreign cultural value. In assimilating
that value to itself, the transplanted value would take root and become
part of the new cultural landscape. And so, Locke sees a third concept
coming into play:
The principle of limited cultural convertibility[:] that, since culture elements,
though widely interchangeable, are so separable, the institutional forms from
their values and the values from their institutional forms, the organic selectivity and assimilative capacity of a borrowing culture becomes a limiting
criterion for cultural exchange. Conversely, pressure acculturation and the
mass transplanting of culture, the stock procedure of groups with traditions of
culture “superiority” and dominance, are counterindicated as against both the
interests of cultural efficiency and the natural trends of cultural selectivity.25
Locke claims that these “three objectively grounded principles of
culture relations” might, if properly implemented, “correct some of
our basic culture dogmatism and progressively cure many of our most
intolerant and prejudicial cultural attitudes and practices.”26 Discovery
of cultural equivalences was supposed to result in an agenda for intercultural understanding, which would, in turn, provide a common foundation for intercultural cooperation.
In my own reading of his work, there is a progression in Locke’s
social philosophy in which tolerance leads to reciprocity, which in turn
concluding observations
275
culminates in “unity in diversity.” Locke describes his own universalism as a “fluid and functional unity that begins in a basic progression
of value pluralism, converts itself to value relativism, and then passes
over into a ready and willing admission of both cultural relativism and
pluralism.”27 Locke’s hierarchy of loyalty, tolerance, reciprocity, cultural relativism, and pluralism (the philosophical equivalent of “unity
in diversity”) was a pragmatic application of quintessentially Bahá’í
values.
“Loyalty” expresses group solidarity. Loyalty is related to the idea
of tolerance. Loyalty is love of one’s own race, ethnicity, and culture.
The concept of loyalty is connected with the notion of community.
“Indeed,” as Stikkers states, “it was Royce’s theories of loyalty and
community and Locke’s experience in the Bahá’í faith . . . that provided the main intellectual influences on Locke’s pluralism.”28 Locke’s
attraction to Royce’s ideas owes a great deal to the fact that Royce
was “the only major American philosopher during the early 1900s to
publish a book condemning racism.”29 Locke’s cultural relativism was
grounded in Royce’s social ethic of “loyalty to loyalty,” which values
a people’s loyalty to their own particular culture and value system, so
long as respect is maintained for broadly humane values as well.30
“Tolerance” has both individual and social dimensions. Locke’s
concept of “tolerance” has its roots in the philosophy of John Locke,
but goes far beyond. In his essay, “Two Lockes, Two Keys, Tolerance
and Reciprocity in a Culture of Democracy,” Greg Moses compares
the philosophies of Alain Locke and John Locke. If not in theory then
in practice, John Locke’s ethic of toleration has been “poorly applied
by liberal civilizations.”31 While John Locke stressed mutual tolerance
in an exchange of ideas between individuals, Alain Locke advocated
such tolerance between groups.32 All too often, however, tolerance has
proven to be little more than a thin veneer of acceptance, with an air of
condescension and paternalism by the dominant group. As Locke stated
in a lecture on 10 December 1947, in his Philosophy of Democracy
course, “People want respect, not tolerance.”33
“Reciprocity” is really an extension of democracy in that it constrains group dominance through promoting the equality of groups.
Moses sums this up eloquently when he concludes his essay by saying:
“Reciprocity—to shift figures in function and form—would be key
to the new [Alain] Locke, as tolerance had been key to the old [John
Locke].”34
276
alain locke: faith & philosophy
The most recent and sophisticated treatment of Locke’s philosophy of unity in diversity is that of Judith M. Green. In her book, Deep
Democracy: Community, Diversity, and Transformation (1999), Green
devotes an entire chapter to Locke.35 Green observes that a great deal
of Locke’s work remains unpublished, and that his contribution has
been largely forgotten until recently. Green identifies two streams of
thought and experience in Locke’s life and work. One stream is an
African American historical, cultural, and intellectual tradition—the
specific loyalty that “links Locke with forebears in struggle like
Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth, with older contemporaries
like Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. DuBois (who assisted his early
career), with younger contemporaries like Martin Luther King, Jr.,
and Malcolm (X) Shabazz, and with our living generations of African
American public intellectuals.”36 Speaking of America, Locke stated
that “this ominous rainbow . . . shows a wide diffusion of bias and
prejudice in our social atmosphere and, unfortunately, presages not the
passing, but the coming of a storm . . . and unless America solves these
minority issues constructively and achieves minority peace or minority tolerance, in less than half a generation she will be in the flaming
predicament of Europe.”37
The other stream is his cosmopolitan outlook, particularly his
commitment to “cultural pluralism.” Locke’s pluralism compensated
for some of the deficiencies of liberalism. As Segun Gbadegesin rhetorically asks: “How, if at all, does liberalism differ from pluralism?
Liberalism’s emphasis is freedom: freedom is its battle cry. But there
are other values, including justice . . . and community.”38 Locke’s cosmopolitan paradigm of unity is a “theoretical and praxical transformation of classical American pragmatism.”39 According to Green, Locke
had precociously conceptualized “deep democracy” as “cosmopolitan
unity amidst valued diversity.”40
Locke also spoke of the role of education in cultivating “international-mindedness.”41 Art, education, as well as philosophy were
venues through which Locke sought to move the world. Education
would play a transformative role in helping to bring about a world
culture—one characterized by a “race-transcending”42 consciousness.
Final Thoughts: It is in the realm of race relations that Alain Locke
speaks to America today. He was—and still is—a statesman across
America’s racial divide. In a letter dated 7 November 1943, to the editor
concluding observations
277
of The Washington Star, Locke cites with approval a story appearing in
the Salt Lake Tribune, which quoted him as saying:
There must be complete consistency between what democracy professes and
what democracy practices. . . . Public opinion in America has got to be sold
on racial democracy. Now is the time for the people to face this question. Race
equality alone can secure world peace. . . . To save the United States from
moral bankruptcy we must solve the color problem.43
If interracial unity—beyond racial justice—was Martin Luther
King, Jr.’s “dream” for America, it was also Locke’s vision for the
world. Locke prized unity. He had a disdain for black “self-segregation”44 as well as for Jim Crow segregation. In an unpublished essay
that Washington has titled, “The Paradox of Race,” Locke not only
advocated racial integration but encouraged interracial marriage as
well.45 It is quite clear that Locke’s vision of interracial unity was
inspired by his experience as a member of the early American Bahá’í
community. Interracial unity, in Bahá’í parlance, is often described
as “unity in diversity”—a term that encompasses the entire range of
human differences.46 This term appears in both Locke’s philosophical
as well as religious essays.
One can tentatively say that the Bahá’í principle of “unity in diversity” has indirectly influenced African American philosophy by way of
Locke. This study has also suggested that Locke’s religious works were
informed by his philosophy. Not only was there a synergy between the
two, but there was also a creative connection between Locke’s Bahá’í
values and his philosophical commitments. For instance, in his essay,
“Unity through Diversity: A Bahá’í Principle,” Locke writes: “Josiah
Royce, one of the greatest American philosophers[,] saw this problem
more clearly than any other western thinker, which is nothing more or
less than a vindication of the principle of unity and diversity carried
out to a practical degree of spiritual reciprocity.” Here, Locke directly
correlates religious and philosophical principles.
Except in conferences at which he presented, Locke contributed
relatively little to the formal, academic philosophy of his day. He
took his philosophy of democracy directly to the people, especially in
radio broadcasts and public lectures during World War II. Locke has
only recently entered the canon of American philosophy and taken
his rightful place alongside other great philosophers with the appear-
278
alain locke: faith & philosophy
ance of John Stuhr’s Pragmatism and Classical American Philosophy
(2000).47 This is a belated but welcome recognition of Locke’s contribution as a pragmatist philosopher. Indeed, Louis Menand, in his edited
anthology, Pragmatism: A Reader, credits Horace Kallen, Alain Locke,
and Randolph Bourne with the philosophical shift from metaphysical
to cultural pluralism. In an unpublished “Private Memorandum,” Locke
reflected on his achievements:
I have taught continuously at Howard University from 1912 to date, with the
exception of two years, 1925-27 when I was discharged. My main objectives
have been to use philosophy as an agent for stimulating critical mindedness in
Negro youth, to help transform segregated educational missions into centers
of cultural and social leadership, and to organise an advance-guard of creative
talent for cultural inspiration and prestige. Unless education be construed in
the broad sense of moulding thought and public opinion, my work has no
special claims in this field, but rather in that of belles lettres on the one hand
and race relations on the other.48
As one indication of Locke’s contribution to American pragmatism, Locke, in his essay “Values and Imperatives” has identified a
gap—a flaw really—in American philosophy, for not having given due
consideration to the role of feelings in the formation of social values.
As though pragmatism itself was guilty of its own inert abstraction,
Locke writes:
We again have made common cause with the current scientific attitude;
making truth too exclusively a matter of the correct anticipation of experience, of the confirmation of fact. Yet truth may also sometimes be the sustaining of an attitude, the satisfaction of a way of feeling, the corroboration of a
value. To the poet, beauty is truth; to the religious devotee, God is truth; to
the enthused moralist, what ought-to-be overtops factual reality. It is perhaps
to be expected that the typical American philosophies should concentrate
almost exclusively on thought-action as the sole criterion of experience, and
should find analysis of the emotional aspects of human behavior uncongenial.
This in itself, incidentally, is a confirming example of an influential value-set,
amounting in this instance to a grave cultural bias.49
In racially segregated America with its Jim Crow coercions,
Locke’s universalism far exceeded the scope of his contemporaries.
Locke’s prophetic pragmatism drew its inspiration from the trinity of
Bahá’u’lláh, Royce, and Boas. One can say that Locke has synthesized
faith (Bahá’u’lláh) and philosophy (Royce), reinforced by scientific
anthropology (Boas). In Harris’s rediscovery of Locke’s published work
concluding observations
279
and recovery of his unpublished work, we find that Locke’s philosophy
of democracy stands just as tall, as eloquent, and as inspired today as
it did then. It can broaden our scope and enlarge our moral vision. But
Locke did much more. As a catalyst of black culture—Locke was the
godfather of an artistic movement that was truly historic.
As a religious personality, Locke was always listed in biographies
as an Episcopalian, the denomination in which he was raised. In a
real sense, Locke was a Christian-Bahá’í. His religious convictions
were, at times, expressed in different ways. For instance, in an unpublished autobiographical statement, Locke wrote: “I am really a Xtian
[Christian] without believing any of its dogma, because I am incapable
of feeling hatred, revenge or jealously—though filled all the time with
righteous indignation. . . . I have always hoped to be big enough to have
to justify myself not to my contemporaries but to posterity. Small men
apologize to their neighbors, big men to posterity.”50
Compare this private statement to one that was almost certainly
intended for the public: In his untitled manuscript, “The Gospel of the
Twentieth Century.” Locke expresses his appreciation of—and solidarity with—the Bahá’í Faith, in these words:
The gospel for the Twentieth Century rises out of the heart of its greatest
problems—and few who are spiritually enlightened doubt the nature of that
problem. . . . The redemption of society—social salvation, should have been
sought after first . . . The fundamental problems of current America are
materiality and prejudice. . . . And so we must say with the acute actualities of America’s race problem and the acute potentialities of her economic
problem, [that] the land that is nearest to material democracy is furthest
away from spiritual democracy . . . And we must begin heroically with the
greatest apparent irreconcilables: the East and the West, the black man and
the self-arrogating Anglo-Saxon, for unless these are reconciled, the salvation of society cannot be. If the world had believingly understood the full
significance of Him who taught it to pray and hope “Thy kingdom come
on earth as it is in Heaven,” who also said “In my Father’s house are many
mansions,” already we should be further toward the realization of this great
millennial vision. The word of God is still insistent, and more emphatic as the
human redemption delays and becomes more crucial, and we have what Dr.
Esslemont rightly calls Baha’u’llah’s “one great trumpet-call to humanity”:
“That all nations shall become one in faith, and all men as brothers; that the
bonds of affection and unity between the sons of men should be strengthened;
that diversity of religion should cease, and differences of race be annulled . .
. These strifes and this bloodshed and discord must cease, and all men be as
one kindred and family.”51
280
alain locke: faith & philosophy
Public intellectuals dare not be perceived as parochial. Locke was
at his religious best in not being openly religious. In secularizing the
sacred, Locke was following a venerable American tradition. Through
his unique synergy of faith and philosophy, Locke fused pragmatism
with prophecy to achieve a constructive synthesis—his multidimensional philosophy of democracy.
Locke imposed upon himself the “task of transposing the traditional Bahá’í reciprocity between religions into the social and cultural denominationalisms of nation, race and class, and vindicating
anew upon this plane the precious legacy of the inspired teachings of
‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Bahá’u’lláh.”52 In an age of social conformity and
racial oppression, Locke championed Bahá’í principles, always “transposing” these ideas into his vocation as a philosopher, and then back
again through his contributions to the Bahá’í community.
Alain Locke was a great American. Historically, he expressed, not
the consciousness—but rather the conscience, of America. He continues to do so today. Over fifty years after his death in 1954, Locke
is alive in his contemporary relevance to all Americans. His life was
dedicated to the realization of quintessential American ideals, which
are intrinsically universal ideals. In part, Bahá’í principles helped
Locke accomplish far more than any politician could—in inspiring a
democracy of the heart within the soul of America. This philosopher of
faith restores a faith in philosophy, in an embrace of race and a fusion
of democratic values and vision.
Notes
1. Untitled essay, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-143, Folder 3 (Writings
by Locke—Notes. Christianity, spirituality, religion) pp. 9-10.
2. Locke to Cullen, n.d., Box 3, Fol. Locke, Countee Cullen Papers, Amistad
Research Center, Tulane University.
3. “Baha’i Faith, Only Church in World That Does Not Discriminate.” Ebony,
Vol. 7 (12 October 1952) pp. 39-46 [39]. Locke kept a copy of this article. Alain
Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-147, Folder 12 (Articles, advertisements that mention Locke).
4. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-167, Folder 4: 1950-1953 (Programs on
which Locke’s Name Appears).
5. Untitled essay, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-143, Folder 3 (Writings
by Locke—Notes. Christianity, spirituality, religion) p. 9.
6. Harris, The Philosophy of Alain Locke, p.135.
7. Ibid., p. 136, emphasis added.
concluding observations
281
8. Green, Deep Democracy, p. 97.
9. Washington, Alain Locke and Philosophy, p. xxv.
10. Harris, The Philosophy of Alain Locke, p. 135.
11. Mason, “Locke’s Social Philosophy,” p. 26.
12. Ibid., p. 28.
13. Kenneth W. Stikkers, “Instrumental Relativism and Cultivated Pluralism:
Alain Locke and Philosophy’s Quest for a Common World,” The Critical
Pragmatism of Alain Locke, pp. 214-15.
14. Posnock, Color and Culture, p. 202.
15. Harris, The Philosophy of Alain Locke, pp. 134, 135, 203.
16. Ibid., pp. 70-17.
17. Green, Deep Democracy, p. 124.
18. Alain Locke, “Cultural Relativism and Ideological Peace,” in Approaches to
World Peace, ed. by Lyman Bryson, Louis Finfelstein, and R. M. MacIver (New
York: Harper & Brothers, 1944), 609-18. Reprinted in Harris, Philosophy of Alain
Locke, pp. 67-78.
19. Harris, The Philosophy of Alain Locke, p. 72.
20. Ibid., p. 73.
21. Ibid., p. 60.
22. Ibid., p. 48.
23. Ibid., p. 73.
24. Moses, “Two Lockes, Two Keys,” 166.
25. Harris, The Philosophy of Alain Locke, p. 73.
26. Ibid., p. 73.
27. Ibid., pp. 97-98.
28. Stikkers, “Instrumental Relativism and Cultivated Pluralism,” p. 214.
29. Leonard Harris, Philosophy of Alain Locke, p. 4. See Josiah Royce, Race
Questions, Provincialism, and Other American Problems (1908; reprint, Freeport:
Books of Libraries Press 1967).
30. Green, “Alain Locke’s Multicultural Philosophy of Value,” p. 88. See also
Royce, Race Questions.
31. Greg Moses, “Two Lockes, Two Keys: Tolerance and Reciprocity in a Culture
of Democracy,” in Harris, The Critical Pragmatism of Alain Locke, p. 168.
32. Ibid., p. 168.
33. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-112, Folder 6 (“Concept of Democracy.”
Outline of lecture for Philosophy of Democracy course. 10 December 1947) p. 2.
34. Moses, “Two Lockes, Two Keys,” p. 173.
35. Green, “Cosmopolitan Unity Amidst Valued Diversity,” p. 132.
36. Green, Deep Democracy, p. 97.
37. Alain Locke, “Minorities and the Social Mind,” Progressive Education, Vol.
12 (March 1935) p. 142.
38. Segun Gbadegesin, “Values, Imperatives, and the Imperative of Democratic
Values,” in Harris, The Critical Pragmatism of Alain Locke, p. 288.
39. Gbadegesin, “Values, Imperatives, and the Imperative of Democratic Values,”
p. 288.
40. Green, Deep Democracy, p. 96.
41. Alain Locke, “Lessons in World Crisis,” p. 746.
42. Rudolph V. Vanterpool, “Open-Textured Aesthetic Boundaries: Matters of Art,
282
alain locke: faith & philosophy
Race, and Culture,” in Harris, The Critical Pragmatism of Alain Locke, p. 141.
43. Locke to The Washington Star, 7 Nov. 1943, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box
164-91, Folder 54 (The Washington Star).
44. Hutchison, The Harlem Renaissance in Black and White, p. 86.
45. Johnny Washington, A Journey into the Philosophy of Alain Locke (Westport,
CT and London: Greenwood Press, 1994) p. 103.
46. It should be noted that Shoghi Effendi, in The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh,
2nd rev. edn. (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1974 [1938]), used this term to
refer to differences of ethnic origins, climate, history, language, tradition, thought
and habit (p. 41)—generally, in the sense of a lack of conformity except in essentials—as the bedrock of the Bahá’í administrative order. It is therefore misleading
to represent “unity in diversity” as applying only to race. (I am indebted to Gayle
Morrison for this important observation.)
47. John J. Stuhr, ed., Pragmatism and Classical American Philosophy: Essential
Readings and Interpretive Essays, 2nd edn. (New York: Oxford University Press,
2002).
48. Private memorandum, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-1, Folder 2
(“Autobiographical statements”). Photocopy of typescript in present writer’s possession. Michael R. Winston, “Locke, Alain LeRoy,” in Rayford W. Logan and
Michael R. Winston, eds. Dictionary of American Negro Biography (New York
and London: W. W. Norton, 1982) p. 402.
49. Harris, The Philosophy of Alain Locke, p. 37.
50. Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-1, Folder 2 (Autobiographical statements).
51. Untitled essay, Alain Locke Papers, MSRC, Box 164-143, Folder 3 (Writings
by Locke—Notes. Christianity, spirituality, religion).
52. Harris, The Philosophy of Alain Locke, p. 138.
Appendix
Appendix
Letters from Shoghi Effendi to Alain Locke
Persian Colony, Haifa
15-II-30
Dear Dr. Locke:
Shoghi Effendi has been lately spending his leisure hours translating
the Book of Iqan for he considers it to be the key to a true understanding of the Holy Scriptures, & [sic] can easily rank as one of the most,
if not the most, important thing that Baha’u’llah revealed explaining
the basic beliefs of the Cause. He who fully grasps the purport of that
Book can claim to have understood the Cause.
Yet, Shoghi Effendi believes that mere translation into English
phrases is not sufficient. It is essential to make the idioms & expressions lively English, a thing which he alone cannot possibly achieve.
Thinking, therefore, that you will be the best fitted to render him an
assistance along that line, he is sending you the part that he has already
completed. He would be most appreciative if you go over it carefully,
studying every sentence— its structure as well as choice of words— &
giving him your criticism as well as constructive suggestions that
would make it more lucid, English & forceful. As it is a Holy Scripture,
Shoghi Effendi has tried to put it in the English of the Bible, preferring
its ways of expression better than any other. What he sends you now is
half of the book, the rest he will mail as it is translated.
285
286
appendix
The form that it is in at present is far from being the last one. Yet
he wishes to have all the possible suggestions before he puts it in its
final form.
Shoghi Effendi is fully aware of the many duties you have & how
pressing your time is, & had he known of an equally fitting person he
would surely have saved you the trouble. Yet he finds himself to be
compelled. He hopes, therefore, that you will give this work your close
attention.
If the book is completed & rendered into a lucid & forceful language, the service it will render to the Cause will surely repay all your
endeavours. In many places you will see the same idea expressed in
other words & inserted in paranthesis [sic]. You can chose [sic] any of
the two. In case you have any suggestions just mention in what page &
line it is. You need not send him back the copy after going over it, for
he may desire to refer to them later. He has enough copies here. Though
he wishes you to give it all your attention he will be much obliged if
you take it up immediately.
With deepest appreciation
Yours ever sincerely
Ruhi Afnan
appendix
287
49 Persian Colony
Haifa, Palestine
5-7-30
Dear Prof. Locke:
Shoghi Effendi wishes me to acknowledge the receipt of your letter as
well as the mss. of the Iqan which you had so kindly gone over. Though
they were not so many, he found the suggestions you gave most helpful.
In translation work the greatest difficulty is to give the thought a lively
English expression. This is most difficult for the person who gets
absorbed into the original form & is charmed with its beauty. Shoghi
Effendi has already incorporated your suggestions & sent his manuscript to the National Assembly for publication. It naturally depends
upon that body & the reviewing & publishing committees to decide
whether it should come out immediately or not.
The most important service that can now be rendered to the Cause
is to put the writings of Baha’u’llah in a form that would be presentable
to the intellectual minds of the west. Shoghi Effendi’s hope in this work
has been to encourage others along this line.
In closing may I express Shoghi Effendi’s best wishes for your
health as well as for the services you are rendering to the Cause.
Yours ever sincerely
Ruhi Afnan.
[Postscript in the Guardian’s own hand:]
My dear co-worker:
I wish to add a few words expressing my deep appreciation of
your valued suggestions in connexion with the translation of the Iqan.
I wish also to express the hope that you may be able to lend increasing
assistance to the work of the Cause, as I have always greatly admired
your exceptional abilities & capacity to render distinguished services
to the Faith. I grieve to hear of the weakness of your heart which I trust
may through treatment be completely restored. I often remember you
in my prayers and ever cherish the hope of welcoming you again in the
Master’s home.
Your true brother,
Shoghi
Bibliography
Bibliography
‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Compiled by the
Research Department of the Universal House of Justice. Translated by the
Marzieh Gail, et al. Haifa: Bahá’í World Center, 1978.
________. Múntakhabátí az Makátib-i Hadrat-i ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Vol. 1. Haifa:
Bahá’í World Center, 1978.
________. The Promulgation of Universal Peace: Discourses by Abdu’l-Bahá
Abbas during His Visit to the United States in 1912. Rev. edn. in one vol.
Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1943.
________. “Address of Abdu’l-Bahá at the Home of Mrs. Dyer, April 24, 1912,
9 p.m.” Translated by Dr. Ameen U. Fareed and taken stenographically by
Joseph H. Hannen. Star of the West, Vol. 3, no. 3 (28 April 1912) p. 21.
Akam, Everett. “Community and Cultural Crisis: The ‘Transfiguring Imagination’
of Alain Locke.” American Literary History, Vol. 3, no. 2 (Summer 1991):
pp. 255-76.
Bagdadi, Zia M. “ ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in America,” Star of the West, Vol. 19, no. 3 (June
1928).
“Baha’i Faith, Only Church in World That Does Not Discriminate.” Ebony, Vol. 7
(12 October 1952) pp. 39-46.
Baker, Houston, Jr. Modernism and the Harlem Renaissance. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1987.
Bearden, Romare and Harry Henderson. A History of African-American Artists
From 1792 to the Present. New York: Pantheon Books, 1993.
Borchert, James. Alley Life in Washington: Family, Community, Religion, and
Folklife in the City, 1850-1970. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1980.
Boyd, Valerie. Wrapped in Rainbows: The Life of Zora Neale Thurston. New York:
Scribner, 2003.
Braithwaite, William Stanley, Ralph Bunche, C. Glenn Carrington, W. E. B. Du
Bois, Benjamin Karpman, Yervant Krikorian, and William Stuart Nelson.
Alain LeRoy Locke Funeral Orations Brochure. 1954.
________, Ralph Bunche, C. Glenn Carrington, W. E. B. Du Bois, Benjamin
Karpman, Yervant Krikorian, William Stuart Nelson. “The Passing of Alain
Leroy Locke,” Phylon, Vol. 15 (1954) pp. 243-52.
291
292
bibliography
________. “Alain Locke’s Relationship to the Negro in American Literature.”
Remembering the Harlem Renaissance. Edited by Cary D. Wintz. New York:
Garland, 1996. Pp. 420-27.
Brown, Sterling. Washington, City and Capital. Federal Writers’ Project. Works
Progress Administration. Washington, D.C.: United States Government
Printing Office, 1937.
Buck, Christopher. “Alain Locke.” American Writers: A Collection of Literary
Biographies. Supplement XIV. Edited by Jay Parini. Farmington Hills, MI:
Scribner’s Reference/The Gale Group, 2004. Pp. 195-219.
________. “Alain Locke and Cultural Pluralism.” Search for Values: Ethics in
Baha’i Thought. Edited by Seena Fazel and John Danesh. Los Angeles:
Kalimat Press, 2004. Pp. 94-158.
________. “Robert Hayden.” Oxford Encyclopedia of American Literature. Edited
by Jay Parini. Vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Pp. 177-81.
________. “Alain Locke: Baha’i Philosopher.” Baha’i Studies Review, Vol. 10
(2001/2002) pp. 7-49.
________. Paradise and Paradigm: Key Symbols in Persian Christianity and the
Baha’i Faith. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999.
________. Symbol and Secret: Qur’án Commentary in Bahá’u’lláh’s Kitáb-i Íqán.
Los Angeles: Kalimát Press, 1995.
Burgett, Paul Joseph. “Vindication as a Thematic Principle in Alain Locke’s
Writings on the Music of Black Americans.” The Harlem Renaissance:
Revaluations. Edited by Amritjit Singh, William S. Shiver, and Stanley
Brodwin. New York: Garland, 1989. Pp. 139-157.
Butcher, Margaret. The Negro in American Culture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1956.
Cain, Rudolph A. “Alain Leroy Locke: Crusader and Advocate for the Education
of African American Adults.” Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 64, no. 1
(1995) pp. 87-99.
Carroll, Andrew, ed. Letters of a Nation: A Collection of Extraordinary American
Letters. New York: Broadway Books, 1999.
Carter, J. Kameron. “African American Pragmatism: A Review Essay.” Hedgehog
Review, Vol. 3, no. 3 (2001) pp. 123-39.
Clark, Deb. “The Bahá’ís of Baltimore, 1898-1990.” Communities Histories.
Edited by Richard Hollinger. Studies in the Bábí and Bahá’í Religions, Vol.
6. Los Angeles: Kalimát Press, 1992. Pp. 111-50.
Deveaux, Monique. Cultural Pluralism and Dilemmas of Justice. Ithaca and
London: Cornell University Press, 2000.
Du Bois, W. E. B. The Souls of Black Folks. Centenary edition. Edited by Henry
Louis Gates, Jr. and Terri Hume Oliver. New York and London: Norton,
1999. Originally published as The Souls of Black Folks: Essays and Sketches.
Chicago: A. C. McClurg and Co., 1903.
Epps, Archie C., Hathan Higgins, Harold Cruse, Albert Murray, Ralph Ellison.
“The Alain L. Locke Symposium, December 1, 1973.” The Harvard Advocate,
Vol. 107, no. 4 (1974) pp. 9-29.
Etter-Lewis, Gwendolyn. “African American Women in the Bahá’í Faith, 18991919.” World Order, Vol. 25, no. 2 (Winter 1993-94) pp. 41-57.
Fádil Mázandarání, Taríkh-i Zuhúr al-Haqq. Vol. 8, part 2. Tehran: Bahá’í
bibliography
293
Publishing Trust, 132 B.E.
Fitchue, M. Anthony. “Locke and Du Bois: Two Major Black Voices Muzzled by
Philanthropic Organizations.” Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, Vol. 14
(Winter 1996-1997) pp. 111-16. Online. JSTOR. Accessed 5 Mar 2001.
Fitzpatrick, Sandra and Maria R. Goodwin. The Guide to Black Washington:
Places and Events of Historical and Cultural Significance in the Nation’s
Capital. Revised Illustrated Edition. New York: Hippocrene Books, 2001.
Franke, Astrid. “Struggling with Stereotypes: The Problems of Representing a
Collective Identity.” The Critical Pragmatism of Alain Locke: A Reader on
Value Theory, Aesthetics, Community, Culture, Race, and Education, edited
by Leonard Harris. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999.
Fraser, Nancy. “Another Pragmatism: Alain Locke, Critical ‘Race Theory,’ and the
Politics of Culture.” The Critical Pragmatism of Alain Locke: A Reader on
Value Theory, Aesthetics, Community, Culture, Race, and Education. Edited
by Leonard Harris. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999.
________. “Another Pragmatism: Alain Locke, Critical ‘Race’ Theory, and the
Politics of Culture.” The Revival of Pragmatism: New Essays on Social
Thought, Law, and Culture. Edited by Morris Dickstein. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 1998.
Gbadegesin, Segun. “Values, Imperatives, and the Imperative of Democratic
Values.” The Critical Pragmatism of Alain Locke: A Reader on Value Theory,
Aesthetics, Community, Culture, Race, and Education. Edited by Leonard
Harris. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999.
Green, Constance. The Secret City: A History of Race Relations in the Nation’s
Capital. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967.
Green, Judith. “Alain Locke’s Multicultural Philosophy of Value.” The Critical
Pragmatism of Alain Locke: A Reader on Value Theory, Aesthetics, Community,
Culture, Race, and Education. Edited by Leonard Harris. Lanham, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield, 1999.
________. “Cosmopolitan Unity Amidst Valued Diversity: Alain Locke’s Vision
of Deeply Democratic Transformation.” Deep Democracy: Community,
Diversity, and Transformation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999.
Pp. 95-134.
Gregory, Louis. “The Historic Thirty-Sixth Convention.” Bahá’í News, no. 170
(Sept. 1944) p. 7.
________. “Racial Amity in America.” The Bahá’í World: A Biennial International
Record, Volume VII, 1936-1938. National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís
of the United States and Canada, 1939. Pp. 652-66. Reprint, Wilmette: Bahá’í
Publishing Trust, 1980.
________. “A Brief History of the Baha’i Religion in Washington, D.C.”
Manuscript dated 28 October 1938. “Submitted by the Spiritual Assembly of
the Baha’is of Washington, D.C. to the Historical Religious Survey Division
of the Works Progress Administration[,] United States Government.”
________. “Some Recollections of the Early Days of the Bahai Faith in
Washington, D.C.” Manuscript dated 7 December 1937. Courtesy of Gayle
Morrison, U.S. Bahá’’í National Center.
________. “Inter-Racial Amity.” The Bahá’í World: A Biennial International
294
bibliography
Record,.Volume II, 1926-1928. Reprint: Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust,
1980 [1929]. Pp. 280-85.
________, Louise D. Boyle, Agnes Parsons. Report of Southern Regional Teaching
Committee.” Manuscript dated 15 April 1926.
________. “Convention for Amity Between the Colored and White Races.” Star of
the West, Vol. 12, no. 6 (24 June 1921) pp. 114-19, 123-24. Reprinted as Vol.
7, Oxford: George Ronald. 1978.
Guy, Talmage. “Prophecy From the Periphery: Alain Locke’s Philosophy of
Cultural Pluralism.” Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 46, no. 4 (1996): 209-223.
Hall, Stephen G. “Locke, Alain (1885-1954).” W. E. B. Du Bois: An Encyclopedia.
Edited by Gerald Horne and Mary Young. Westport, Conn. and London:
Greenwood Press, 2001. Pp. 125-26.
Harris, Leonard, ed. The Critical Pragmatism of Alain Locke. New York: Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers, 1999.
________, ed. The Philosophy of Alain Locke: Harlem Renaissance and Beyond.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989.
________. “Alain Locke.” American National Biography, 24 vols. Ed. John A.
Garraty and Mark C. Carnes. London: Oxford University Press, 1999. Vol.
13, pp. 796-98. Online: http://www.anb.org/articles/20/20-00599-article.html.
________. “Universal Human Liberation and Community: Pixley Kalsaka Seme
and Alain L. Locke.” Perspectives in African Philosophy: An Anthology on
“Problematics of an African Philosophy: Twenty Years After (1976-1996)”.
Ed. Claude Sumner and Samuel W. Yohannes. Addis Ababa University Printing Press, 2002. Pp. 150-59.
________. “ ‘Outing’ Alain Locke: Empowering the Silenced.” Sexual Identities,
Queer Politics. Ed. Mark Blasius. Princeton University Press, 2001. Pp. 32141.
________. “Insurrectionist Ethics: Advocacy, Moral Psychology, and Pragmatism.” Ethical Issues for a New Millennium: The Wayne Leys Memorial
Lectures. Ed. John Howie. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,
2002. Pp. 192-210.
________. “Alain Locke.” Classical American Philosophy. Ed. John Stuhr.
London: Oxford University Press, 1999. Pp. 237-48.
________. “Alain Locke and Community,” Journal of Ethics, Vol. 1 (1997) pp.
239-47.
________. “Leonard Harris on the Life and Work of Alain Locke.” in African
American Humanism. Ed. Norm R. Allan, Jr. New York: Prometheus Books,
1991. Pp. 269-75.
________. “Rendering the Subtext: Subterranean Deconstruction Project.” The
Philosophy of Alain Locke: Harlem Renaissance and Beyond. Ed. by Leonard
Harris. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989. Pp. 279-89.
________. “Alain Locke: Community and Citizenship.” The Modern Schoolman,
Vol. 74 (May 1997) pp. 337-46.
________. “Identity: Alain Locke’s Atavism.” Transactions of the Charles S.
Peirce Society, Vol. 26, no. 1 (Winter 1988) pp. 65-84.
________. “The Characterization of American Philosophy: The African World as a
Reality in American Philosophy.” Quest: Philosophical Discussions, Vol. 11,
no. 1 (June 1988) pp. 25-36.
bibliography
295
________. “Guest Forward.” Rudolph A. K. Cain, Alain LeRoy Locke: Race,
Culture, and the Education of African American Adults. New York: Value
Inquiry, 2003. Pp.‑ xv-xvii.
________. “Alain Locke.” A Companion to American Thought. Ed. Richard Fox,
and James Kloppenberg. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Company, 1996. P.
5.
________. Book Review: Johnny Washington, Alain Locke and Philosophy.
Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 20, no. 4 (June 1990) pp. 487-89.
________. “Alain Locke: Community and Citizenship.” Modern Schoolman, Vol.
74, no. 4 (May 1997) pp. 337-46.
________. “Rendering the Text.” The Philosophy of Alain Locke: Harlem
Renaissance and Beyond. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989.
Harvey, William B. “The Philosophical Anthropology of Alain Locke.” Alain
Locke: Reflections on a Modern Renaissance Man. Edited by Russell J.
Linnemann. Baton Rouge and London: Louisiana State University, 1982.
Hatch, James Vernon, Hatch-Billops Collection (taped interviews of theater).
Sound Recording: Non-music: Interviews: 76 sound tape reels: Analog, 3 3/4
ips, mono.: 5 in. Collection of interviews (conducted by various interviewers under the direction of James Hatch and Camille Billops) with African
Americans in the performing arts, primarily theatre. Includes interview
Alain Locke. Sound Recording. Accession No: OCLC: 24937420. Database:
WorldCat. 1970-1974.
Helbling, Mark. The Harlem Renaissance: The One and the Many. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press, 1999.
Helbling, Mark. “Alain Locke: Ambivalence and Hope.” Phylon, Vol. 40, no. 3
(1979) pp. 291-300.
Hine, Darlene Clark, William C. Hine, and Stanley Harrold, eds. The AfricanAmerican Odyssey. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000.
Holley, Horace. “Survey of Current Bahá’í Activities in the East and West.” The
Bahá’í World: A Biennial International Record, Volume II, April 1926-April
1928. Comp. National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States
and Canada. New York: Bahá’í Publishing Committee, 1928. Pp. 22-23.
Reprint, Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1980.
Holloway, Jonathan Scott. Confronting the Veil: Abram Harris, Jr., E. Franklin
Frazier, and Ralph Bunche, 1919-1941. Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, 2002.
Holmes, Eugene C. “Alain Leroy Locke: A Sketch.” The Phylon Quarterly, Vol.
20, no. 1 (1959) pp. 82-9.
Hutchinson, George. “The Whitman Legacy and the Harlem Renaissance.” Walt
Whitman: The Centennial Essays. Edited by Folsom. Iowa City: University of
Iowa Press, 1994. Pp. 201-216.
________. The Harlem Renaissance in Black and White. Cambridge, MA and
London: Harvard University Press, 1995.
Huggins, Nathan Irvin, “Alain Locke: Aesthetic Value-System and Afro-American
Art.” Revelations: American History, American Myths. Edited by Brenda
Smith Huggins. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Pp.
111-14.
Irek, Malgorzata. “From Berlin to Harlem: Felix von Luschan, Alain Locke,
296
bibliography
and the New Negro.” The Black Columbiad: Defining Moments in African
American Literature and Culture. Edited by Werner Sollors and Maria
Diedrich. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994. Pp. 174-184.
Jackson, Lawrence Patrick. “ ‘Been This Way Before’: Black Aesthetic Arguments
of Sterling Brown and Alain Locke in Opportunity Journal.” M. A. Thesis.
Ohio State University, 1992.
Johnson, Charles S. “The Negro Renaissance and Its Significance.” Remembering
the Harlem Renaissance. Edited by Cary Wintz. New York: Garland, 1996.
Pp. 226-234.
Kallen, Horace Meyer. “Alain Locke and Cultural Pluralism.” Journal of
Philosophy, Vol. 54 (28 February 1957) pp. 119-27. Reprinted in Kallen,
What I Believe and Why—Maybe: Essays for the Modern World. New York,
Horizon Press, 1971.
Kloppenberg, James T. “Pragmatism: An Old Name for Some New Ways of
Thinking?” Journal of American History, Vol. 83, no. 1 (June 1996) pp. 10038.
Krasner, David. A Beautiful Pageant: African American Theatre, Drama, and
Performance in the Harlem Renaissance, 1910-1927. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2002.
Lewis, David Levering. When Harlem Was in Vogue. New York: Penguin, 1998.
Library of Congress, Music Division. Freedom: A Concert in Celebration of the
75th Anniversary of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States. Library of Congress, Music Division, 1940. Sound recording
of concert of traditional Negro folk music, performed by the Golden Gate
Quartet, accompanied by Joshua White on guitar and vocals, with commentators Alain Locke on “The Negro Spiritual,” Sterling Brown on blues and
ballads, and Alan Lomax on the “reels” and work songs.
Linfoot, Charlotte. “Alain LeRoy Locke, 1886-1954.” The Bahá’í World: An
International Record, Vol. 13, 1954-1963. Haifa: The Universal House of
Justice, 1980 [1970]. Pp. 894-95.
Locke, Alain. Race Contacts and Interracial Relations: Lectures of the Theory
and Practice of Race. Edited by Jeffery C. Stewart. Washington: Howard
University Press, 1992.
Locke, Alain. The Philosophy of Alain Locke: Harlem Renaissance and Beyond.
Edited by Leonard Harris. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989.
________. “Values That Matter.” Review of The Realms of Value, by Ralph Barton
Perry. Key Reporter 19.3 (1954): 4.
________. “Dawn Patrol: A Review of the Literature of the Negro for 1948.”
Phylon 10:1-2 (1949): 5-14; 167-72. Reprinted in Jeffrey C. Stewart, ed. The
Critical Temper of Alain Locke: A Selection of His Essays on Art and Culture.
New York and London: Garland, 1983. Pp. 337-49.
________. “A Critical Retrospect of the Literature of the Negro for 1947.” Phylon
9.1 (1948): 3-12. Reprinted in Jeffrey C. Stewart, ed. The Critical Temper of
Alain Locke: A Selection of His Essays on Art and Culture. New York and
London: Garland, 1983. Pp. 329-36.
________. “Pluralism and Ideological Peace.” Freedom and Experience: Essays
Presented to Horace M. Kallen. Edited by Milton R. Konvitz and Sidney
Hook. Ithaca: New School for Research and Cornell University Press, 1947.
bibliography
297
Pp. 63-69.
________. “Reason and Race.” Phylon 8:1 (1947): 17-27. Reprinted in Jeffrey C.
Stewart, ed. The Critical Temper of Alain Locke: A Selection of His Essays on
Art and Culture. New York and London: Garland, 1983. Pp. 319-27.
________. “Major Prophet of Democracy.” Review of Race and Democratic
Society by Franz Boas. Journal of Negro Education 15.2 (Spring 1946): 19192.
________. “Lessons in World Crisis.” The Bahá’í World: A Biennial International
Record, Volume IX, 1940-1944. Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1945.
Reprint, Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1980 [1945].
________. “Cultural Relativism and Ideological Peace.” Approaches to World
Peace. Edited by Lyman Bryson, Louis Finfelstein, and R. M. MacIver. New
York: Harper & Brothers, 1944. Pp. 609-618. Reprint in The Philosophy of
Alain Locke, pp. 67-78.
________. “The Moral Imperatives for World Order.” Summary of Proceedings,
Institute of International Relations, Mills College, Oakland, CA, June 18-28,
1944, pp. 19-20. Reprinted in The Philosophy of Alain Locke, pp. 143,151152.
________. “The Negro in the Three Americas.” Journal of Negro Education, Vol.
14 (Winter 1944) pp. 7-18.
________. World View on Race and Democracy: A Study Guide in Human Group
Relations. Chicago: American Library Association, 1943.
________. Le rôle du Negro dans la culture des Amerique. Port-au-Prince: Haiti
Imprimerie de l’état, 1943.
________. “The Negro Group.” Group Relations and Group Antagonisms. Edited
by Robert M. MacIver. New York: Institute for Religious Studies, 1943.
________. “Pluralism and Intellectual Democracy.” Conference on Science,
Philosophy and Religion, Second Symposium. New York: Conference on
Science, Philosophy and Religion, 1942. Pp. 196-212. Reprinted in The
Philosophy of Alain Locke, pp. 51-66.
________. “The Unfinished Business of Democracy.” Survey Graphic, Vol. 31
(November 1942) pp. 455-61.
________. “Democracy Faces a World Order.” Harvard Educational Review, Vol.
12, no. 2 (March 1942) pp. 121-28.
________, Mordecai Johnson, Doxey Wilkerson, Leon Ransom, “Is There a Basis
for Spiritual Unity in the World Today?” Town Meeting: Bulletin of America’s
Town Meeting on the Air, Vol. 8, no. 5 (1 June 1942) pp. 3-12.
________ and Bernhard J. Stern, eds. When Peoples Meet: A Study of Race
and Culture Contacts. New York: Committee on Workshops, Progressive
Education Association, 1942.
________. “Three Corollaries of Cultural Relativism.” Proceedings of the Second
Conference on the Scientific and the Democratic Faith. New York, 1941.
________. “Ballad for Democracy.” Opportunity: Journal of Negro Life, Vol. 18,
no. 8 (August 1940) pp. 228-29.
________. “Locke, Alain.” [Autobiographical sketch.] Twentieth Century Authors.
Ed. Stanley Kunitz and Howard Haycroft. New York: 1942. P. 837.
________. “The Negro Spiritual” [voice recorded commentary]. Freedom: A
Concert in Celebration of the 75th Anniversary of the Thirteenth Amendment
298
bibliography
to the Constitution of the United States (1940). Compact‑disc. New York:
Bridge, 2002.
________. “The Orientation of Hope.” The Bahá’í World: A Biennial International
Record, Volume V, 1932-1934. Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1936.
________. “Values and Imperatives.” American Philosophy, Today and Tomorrow.
Ed. Sidney Hook and Horace M. Kallen. New York: Lee Furman, 1935. Pp.
312-33. Reprints: Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1968; Harris, The
Philosophy of Alain Locke, pp. 31-50.
________. “Spirituals” (1940). The Critical Temper of Alain Locke: A Selection of
His Essays on Art and Culture. Edited by Jeffrey C. Stewart. New York and
London: Garland, 1983. Pp. 123-26.
________. “Negro Spirituals.” Freedom: A Concert in Celebration of the 75th
Anniversary of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States (1940). Compact‑disc. New York: Bridge, 2002. Audio (1:14).
________. Negro Art Past and Present. Washington: Associates in Negro Folk
Education, 1936. (Bronze Booklet No. 3).
________. The Negro and His Music. Washington: Associates in Negro Folk
Education, 1936. (Bronze Booklet No. 2).
________. “Minorities and the Social Mind.” Progressive Education, Vol. 12
(March 1935) pp. 141-50.
________. “Unity through Diversity: A Bahá’í Principle.” The Bahá’í World: A
Biennial International Record, Vol. IV, 1930-1932. Reprint: Wilmette: Bahá’í
Publishing Trust, 1989 [1933].
________. “Educator and Publicist.” Star of the West, Vol. 22, no. 8 (November
1931) pp. 254-55. (Obituary of George William Cook, 1855-1931.)
________. Star of the West, Vol. 15, no. 1 (April 1924) pp. 13-14. Reprint: Bahá’í
Year Book, Volume I, April 1925-April 1926. Comp. National Spiritual
Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada. New York: Bahá’í
Publishing Committee, 1926. Pp. 81, 83; The Bahá’í World: A Biennial
International Record, Volume II, April 1926-April 1928. Comp. National
Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada. New
York: Bahá’í Publishing Committee, 1928. Pp. 125, 127; The Bahá’í World:
A Biennial International Record, Volume III, April 1928-April 1930. Comp.
National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada.
New York: Bahá’í Publishing Committee, 1930. Pp. 280, 282.
________. “A Bahá’í Inter-Racial Conference.” The Bahá’í Magazine (formerly
Star of the West). Vol. 18, no. 10 (January 1928) pp. 315-16.
________. “The High Cost of Prejudice.” Forum, Vol. 78 (December 1927).
________. “The Negro Poets of the United States.” Anthology of Magazine
Verse 1926 and Yearbook of American Poetry. Sesquicentennial edition. Ed.
William S. Braithwaite. Boston: B.J. Brimmer, 1926. Pp. 143-151. Reprinted
in The Critical Temper of Alain Locke: A Selection of His Essays on Art and
Culture. Edited by Jeffrey C. Stewart. New York and London: Garland, 1983.
Pp. 43-45.
________ and Montgomery Davis, eds. Plays of Negro Life: A Source-Book of
Native American Drama. New York and Evanston: Harper and Row, 1927.
________. “Harlem: Mecca of the New Negro.” Survey Graphic, Vol. 6, no. 6 (1
March 1925). Online at http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/harlem/contents.html.
bibliography
299
________. “Impressions of Luxor.” The Howard Alumnus, Vol. 2, no. 4 (May
1924) pp. 74-78.
________. The Problem of Classification in the Theory of Value: or an Outline of
a Genetic System of Values. Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard, 1917.
Logan, Rayford W. Howard University:The First Hundred Years 1867-1967. New
York: New York University Press, 1969.
________, ed. The New Negro Thirty Years Afterward: Papers Contributed to
the Sixteenth Annual Spring Conference . . . April 20, 21, and 22, 1955.
Washington: Howard University Press, 1956.
Lott, Tommy Lee. “Du Bois and Locke on the Scientific Study of the Negro.”
Boundary 2, Vol. 27, no. 3 (2000) pp. 135-52.
________. “Alain LeRoy Locke.” Encyclopedia of Aesthetics. Edited by Michael
P. Kelly. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Pp. 160-65.
________. “Nationalism and Pluralism in Alain Locke’s Social Philosophy.”
Defending Diversity: Contemporary Philosophical Perspectives on Pluralism
and Multiculturalism. Edited by Lawrence Foster and Patricia Herzog.
Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1994. Pp. 103-19.
Mason, Ernest. “Deconstruction in the Philosophy of Alain Locke.” Transactions
of the Charles S. Peirce Society, Vol. 24 (Winter 1988) pp. 85-106.
________. “Alain Locke.” Dictionary of Literary Biography. Vol. 51: AfroAmerican Writers from the Harlem Renaissance to 1940. Edited by Trudier
Harris. Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1987.
________. “Alain Locke’s Philosophy of Value.” Alain Locke: Reflections on a
Modern Renaissance Man. Edited by Russell J. Linnemann. Baton Rouge:
Louisiana State University, 1982. Pp. 1-16.
________. “Alain Locke’s Social Philosophy.” World Order, Vol. 13, no. 2
(Winter 1979) pp. 25-34.
________. “Alain Locke on Race and Race Relations.” Phylon, Vol. 40, no. 4
(1979) pp. 342-50.
McKenna, Erin. “Resisting Species Oppression: Locke and the Baha’i Faith.”
Conference paper, session “Alain Locke: Crossing the Divides of Race, Class,
Gender, and Species.” American Philosophical Organization/Society for the
Advancement of American Philosophy, 2003 Conference. Abstract online:
http://www.american-philosophy.org/archives/2003_conference/2003_
papers/pd-5.htm. Accessed 9 August 2003.
McKenty, Beth. “ ‘Baha’is Commemorate Predictions and Warnings of Founder’.”
Ebony, Vol. 23 (Apr. 1968) pp. 124-29.
Menand, Louis. The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America. New York:
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2001.
Mills, Charles W., “Prophetic Pragmatism as a Political Philosophy.” Cornel
West: A Critical Reader. Edited by George Yancy. Malden, MA and Oxford:
Blackwell, 2001. Pp. 192-223.
Molesworth, Charles. “Alain Locke and Walt Whitman: Manifestos and National
Identity.” The Critical Pragmatism of Alain Locke: A Reader on Value Theory,
Aesthetics, Community, Culture, Race, and Education. Edited by Leonard
Harris. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999.
Moore, Jacqueline M. Leading the Race: The Transformation of the Black Elite
in the Nation’s Capital, 1880-1920. Charlottesville and London: University
300
bibliography
Press of Virginia, 1999.
Moorland-Spingarn Research Center. Alain Locke Collection. Papers, 18411954‑(bulk 1898-1954). Description: 116 linear feet. NUCMC#:
DCLV96-A1041. Manuscript Division. Manuscript Department. Online:
www.founders.howard.edu/moorland-spingarn/collh-l.htm#locke.
Morrison, Gayle. To Move the World: Louis G. Gregory and the Advancement of
Racial Unity in America. Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1982.
________. “To Move the World: Promoting Racial Amity, 1921-1927.” World
Order, Vol. 14, no. 2 (Winter 1980) pp. 9-31.
Moses, Greg. “Two Lockes, Two Keys: Tolerance and Reciprocity in a Culture
of Democracy.” The Critical Pragmatism of Alain Locke. Edited by Leonard
Harris. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999.
Napier, Winston. “Affirming Critical Conceptualism: Harlem Renaissance
Aesthetics and the Formation of Alain Locke’s Social Philosophy.” The
Massachusetts Review, Vol. 39, no. 1 (Spring 1998) pp. 93-112.
National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States. The Vision of
Race Unity: America’s Most Challenging Issue. Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing
Trust, 1991.
________. The Bahá’í Centenary, 1844-1944: A Record of America’s response
to Bahá’u’lláh’s Call to the Realization of the Oneness of Mankind to
Commemorate the One Hundreth Anniversary of the Birth of the Bahá’í Faith.
Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Committee, 1944.
________. “America’s Spiritual Destiny: References to North America in the
Bahá’í Writings.” The Bahá’í Centenary, 1844-1944: A Record of America’s
response to Bahá’u’lláh’s Call to the Realization of the Oneness of Mankind
to Commemorate the One Hundreth Anniversary of the Birth of the Bahá’í
Faith. Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Committee, 1944.
Ober, Elizabeth Kidder, Matthew W. Bullock, and Beatrice Ashton. “Harlan
Foster Ober 1881-1962” (In Memoriam). The Bahá’í World: An International
Record Vol. 13, 1954-1963. Haifa: The Universal House of Justice, 1970. Pp.
866-71.
Pascoe, Peggy. “Miscegenation Law, Court Cases, and Ideologies of ‘Race’ in
Twentieth-Century America.” Journal of American History, Vol. 83, no. 1
(June 1996) pp. 44-69.
Posnock, Ross. Color and Culture: Black Writers and the Making of the Modern
Intellectual. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.
Rich, Paul. “ ‘The Baptism of a New Era’: The 1911 Universal Races Congress
and the Liberal Ideology of Race.” Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 7, no. 4
(1984) pp. 534-50.
Rottenberg, Annette T. The Structure of Argument. 3d edn. Boston: Bedford/St.
Martin’s, 2000.
Royce, Josiah. The Philosophy of Loyalty. Republished with an introduction by
John J. McDermott. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1995 [1908].
________. Race Questions, Provincialism, and Other American Problems. Reprint,
Freeport: Books of Libraries Press, 1967 [1908].
Salley, Columbus. The Black 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential AfricanAmericans, Past and Present. Revised and Updated. Secaucus, NJ: Citadel
Press, 1999 [1993]
bibliography
301
Savage, Barbara Dianne. Broadcasting Freedom: Radio, War, and the Politics
of Race, 1938-1948. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina
Press, 1999.
Scholz, Sally J. “Alain Locke and the Language of World Solidarity.” Newsletter
on Philosophy and the Black Experience, Vol. 98, no. 1 (Fall 1998) pp. 5-8.
Shirley, Wayne D. “William Grant Still’s Choral Ballad ‘And They Lynched Him
on a Tree’.” American Music, Vol. 12, no. 4 (Winter 1994) pp. 425-37.
Shoghi Effendi. The Advent of Divine Justice. Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust,
1969 [1939].
________. Bahá’í Administration: Selected Messages 1922-1932. 7th rev. edn.
Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1974.
Shusterman, Richard J. “Pragmatist Aesthetics: Roots and Radicalism.” The
Critical Pragmatism of Alain Locke: A Reader in Value Theory, Aesthetics,
Community, Culture, Race, and Education. Ed. by Leonard Harris. Lanham:
Rowman and Littlefield, 1999.
Singer, Beth J. “Alain Locke Remembered.” The Critical Pragmatism of Alain
Locke: A Reader in Value Theory, Aesthetics, Community, Culture, Race, and
Education. Ed. by Leonard Harris. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999.
Smith, Marcia A. Black America, A Photographic Journey: Past to Present. San
Diego: Thunder Bay Press, 2002.
Stafford, Douglas K. “Alain Locke: The Child, the Man, and the People.” Journal
of Negro Education, Vol. 30, no. 1 (Winter 1961) pp. 25-34.
Stewart, Jeffrey C. “A Black Aesthete at Oxford.” Massachusetts Review, Vol. 34,
no. 3 (1993) pp. 411-48.
________. “Introduction.” Locke, Race Contacts and Interracial Relations:
Lectures of the Theory and Practice of Race. Edited by Jeffrey Stewart.
Washington, D.C.: Howard University Press, 1992.
________. Alain Locke: A Primary and Secondary Bibliography. Garland
Reference Library of the Humanities, Vol. 489. New York: Garland, 1990.
________. “Alain Locke and Georgia Douglas Johnson, Washington Patrons of
Afro-American Modernism.” George Washington University Studies, Vol. 12
(1986) pp. 37-44.
________. Alain Locke: A Primary and Secondary Bibliography. New York:
Garland, 1985.
________, ed. The Critical Temper of Alain Locke: A Selection of His Essays on
Art and Culture. New York and London: Garland, 1983.
________. “A Biography of Alain Locke: Philosopher of the Harlem Renaissance,
1886-1930.” Ph.D. Dissertation: Yale University, 1979.
Stikkers, Kenneth W. “Instrumental Relativism and Cultivated Pluralism: Alain
Locke and Philosophy’s Quest for a Common World.” The Critical Pragmatism
of Alain Locke: A Reader in Value Theory, Aesthetics, Community, Culture,
Race, and Education. Ed. by Leonard Harris. Lanham: Rowman and
Littlefield, 1999.
Stocking, George W., Jr. Race, Culture, and Evolution: Essays in the History of
Anthropology. University of Chicago Press, 1982 [1968].
Stockman, Robert. The Bahá’í Faith in America: Early Expansion 1900-1912.
Oxford: George Ronald, 1995.
________. “The Bahá’í Faith in America: One Hundred Years.” World Order, Vol.
302
bibliography
25, no. 3 (Spring 1994) pp. 9-23.
Stuhr, John J., ed. Pragmatism and Classical American Philosophy: Essential
Readings and Interpretive Essays, 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2002.
Taylor, Bonnie, comp. The Pupil of the Eye: African Americans in the World Order
of Bahá’u’lláh. Riviera Beach, FL.: Palabra Publications, 1995.
Thomas, Richard. Exploring the Historical and Spiritual Significance of Being a
Person of African Descent in the Bahá’í Faith. African American Teaching
Committee, 1998.
________. Understanding Interracial Unity: A Study of U.S. Race Relations Sage
Series on Race and Ethnic Relations, vol. 16. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, 1996.
Toulmin, Stephen, Richard Rieke, and Allen Janik. An Introduction to Reasoning.
Reprint, New York: Macmillan, 1984 [1978].
Vanterpool, Rudolph V. “Open-Textured Aesthetic Boundaries: Matters of Art,
Race, and Culture.” The Critical Pragmatism of Alain Locke: A Reader in
Value Theory, Aesthetics, Community, Culture, Race, and Education. Ed. by
Leonard Harris. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999.
Ward, Allan L. 239 Days: ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Journey in America. Wilmette: Bahá’í
Publishing Trust, 1979.
Watts, Eric King. “African American Ethos and Hermeneutical Rhetoric: An
Exploration of Alain Locke’s The New Negro.” Quarterly Journal of Speech,
Vol. 88, no. 1 (February 2002) pp. 19-32.
Washington, Johnny. Alain Locke and Philosophy: A Quest for Cultural Pluralism.
New York: Greenwood Press, 1986.
Weithman, P.J. “Deliberative Democracy and Community in Alain Locke.”
Modern Schoolman, Vol. 74.4 (May 1997) pp. 347-53.
Whitman, Walt. “Democratic Vistas.” Leaves Of Grass And Selected Prose. Edited
by Ellman Crasnow. London: Orion Publishing Group, 1993 [1871]. Pp. 50559.
Williams, Juan and Dwayne Ashley. I’ll Find a Way or Make One: A Tribute to
Historically Black Colleges and Universities. New York: Amistad, 2004.
Williams, Roy. “Convention for Amity Between the White and Colored Races,
Springfield, Massachusetts, December 5 and 6, 1921.” Star of the West, Vol.
13 (28 April 1922) pp. 51.
Winston, Michael R. “Locke, Alain LeRoy.” Dictionary of American Negro
Biography. Edited by Rayford W. Logan and Michael R. Winston. New York
and London: W. W. Norton, 1982. Pp. 398-404.
Zaluda, Scott. “Lost Voices of the Harlem Renaissance: Writing Assigned at
Howard University, 1919-31.” College Composition and Communication
Online, Vol. 50, no. 2 (December 1998): 232-57. Published online at: http://
www.ncte.org/ccc/2/50.2/index.html.
Zarqání, Mírzá Mahmúd. Mahmúd’s Diary. Translated by M. Sobhani. Oxford:
George Ronald, 1998.
________. Badá-yi al-Áthár, Vol. 1. Langenhain: Bahá’í Verlag, 1982. Reprint of
the Bombay 1914 edition.
View publication stats