B OKS
Antiestablishmentarianism
Sy BRIAN INGLIS
?TINE Establishment Game was first played in thee columitS in September, 1955, when Henry Fairlie discussed its influence in connec- tion with -Burgess and, Maclean, and with the sup- pression of an article, on Princess Margaret by Maurice Edelman, The term was not new. Hugh Thomas, the editor of this new collection of essays* on the subject, believes it emerged in 1954, when he remembers using it 'in a taxi; I suspect, it is of considerably longer standing. It has now become popular, but hardly respectable. Some people, particularly if they are in the Esstablishment, do not believe it exists. Others agree with Christopher Sykes that it is only the latest product of the 'conspiracy' theory first advanEed by the Abbe 'Barniel, whose believers attribute society's misfortunes to the Jews, the Jesuits .or :• the Jacobins. And ., others disagree
with estimates of its composition, or are sceptical „ .
of its iniportalice. -
These essays., therefore, would be timely if they attempted to answer the obvious questions about the'Establishment's operations. But only one con- tributor, Simon Raven, provides exactly .what is required. His picture of army life will be criticised as prejudiced and slanted; perhaps it is, but it remains a most convincing analysis of the cause• and effect of attitudes of mind common among army officers today. Henry Fairlie's study of the BBC is also admirable; but it suffers by compari- son with Captain Raven's since he is an outsider, looking in; he lacks the first-hand knowledge to• feel what it islike working in, as distinct from performing for, that extraordinary Corporation., And Christopher Hollis on Parliament, and Victor Sandelson on the City, though they have seine interesting ideas, appear to lack the space to develop them.
The rest are not up to standard. Thomas- Balogh's essay on the Civil Service; which takes up almost twice as much space as anybody else's, always promises to be more revealing than it is. The numerous footnotes interrupt rather than amplify; and the author's dogmatic attitude is ill-suited to what should be an exploratory occa- sion, not a -time for grinding worn-down axes. John Vaizey begins by saying that 'intelligent dis- cussion of the public schools is handicapped by the fact that they are indescribably funny,' an assertion which past sufferers under the system are likely to find puzzling (Mr. Vaiiey quotes Orwell on Greyfriars as an example; Orwell's . point was that Greyfrairs was a bogus public school, glamorised and made funny . for non- paiblic-school consumption). Nothing very humor- ous about them emerges—in fact very little useful information of any kind. Mr.. Vain), makes little' barking rushes at his subject; he has to rely on a long, second-hand account from a pupil to inform us what ex-publjc-schoolboys are . like; and he soon 'retreatS to a. safe but irrelevant examination. of how the public schools could be merged into
the State system Of -education. This ought to be • ,.–(' „ , „ *Tun ESTABLISHMENT. Lune by nugn
. (Blond, :El Is.)
one of the most important and readable sections; but the Writer hardly begins to diagnose their influence, and manages to be dull.
The faults of The ENtablishinent, however, are chiefly faults of editing; and it is easy.to see, from Hugh Thomas's . introductory essay how they arose. Mr. Thomas, leads off with that, most tedious , of gambits, dividing up .society into groups which he calls 'Saxons,' Normans,' .'English Swedes,"Agricultural. Labourers' (the last two are not identical); labels which are ridicu- lous taken out of their context and unhelpful within it. He relishes facile definitions which irritate more than they illumine, and glib asser- tions which; when eicioniried, are trite : An Establishment' point of. view in painting undoubtedly, to an unbelievable extent, reflects mid-nineteenth-century canons of judgment; ther.e are still 'circles in England for whom an appreeiation of the Impressionists is an esoteric taste and for whom El Greco, is still 'insane.'
There may he such circles in England; but have they really. anything to do with the 'subject in , hand? Nothing in Mr. Thomas's essay, in fact,- suggests that he has a very clear idea of what the Establishment is. We must look farther.
. Henry Fairlie's original' definition of the Estab- lishment (in the Spectator for September 23, 1955) Was, 'the whole .matrix-of official -and social rela- tions within which power is exercised'—a power which; he went on,.'cannorbe understood Unless it is recognised that it is exercised socially.' This is 'a better effort than Mr. Thomas's: 'The Estab- lishment simply indicates the assumption Of the attributes of a state church by certain powerful institutions and people.' Still, Mr. Thomas does Make .a good point when he says that these institu- tions and people may be supposed 'to be effec- tively beyond democratic control'; the chief distinction between 'the Establishment' and 'the State' lies in the assumption that there are forces which are not, and by their nature cannot be, listed and codified; the essence of the Establish- ment, it could be said, is that it is not established. Christopher Hollis gives a further clue, in his definition : 'a body of people acting, consciously or subconsciously, together, holding no . official lutists through 'which they exercise their power but nevertheless exercising a great influence on national policy.' Subconsciously' 'is important. I do not feel that the 'holding no official posts' matters—sometimes they do, sometimes they do not. But whatever post they may hold, whether it be Prime Minister or club bartender, they do not necessarily lutive to believe in the Establishment, or be aware of believing. in anything—rather the contrary :. to be a full member, it might be argued, it is almost necessary to be unaware that the club exists.
.. There was an interesting example of this the other day When a newspaper hinted that entrance to the BBC'S Establishment-within-the-Estab- lishment . was most . easily obtained through membership of a cricket club of which Mr. Hugh Carleton Greene is a member. Mr. Greene has since been repottetl-aS being amused by the id but there is nothing,very odd--,7-7-or funny—a it. The first lesson of the Establishment often r on how to get,on while keeping off. shop. Thu not,, of course, peculiar to the EstablishmC every journalist knows that those of his collea who are the editor's drinking coniiianions are sited for promotion ,(provided they do not or hash him). But on the wider level of the E.1 lishment it reMains true, not merely that in Country it is exercised socially, but that It achieved Soeially the two are interliriked.' The Establishment's main strength lies in ,fact that its..members meet each other been they like . to. They .talk the same ,language--f ,share the same reticences. Mr. Baldwin claill. to have made Old Harrovians Cabinet . Minist for the sake of the school's prestige. A perhaps he did, but it would not have been s prising if he had • found himself presiding ow! Cabinet full of them, firmly believing that it were the best men for the job. The reason Old Etonians hold so many government p today is not because the Prime Minister feels .1 only Old Etonians can, be trusted, but Ilea' of the social -contact chain 'which puts II-will the running and keeps them there. • On another level it is still true,-as it was-in lifetime of Captain Grimes (not that ('apt' Grimes 'can be presumed deceased),. that 'son one always. turns up and says, "I can't see a put school man down and out Let me put you your feet again." ' But this kind of freemasonr, relatively harmless. It is in its assumption of vift that the Establishment is depressing. This `` shown most clearly at the time of the Bank r tribunal, when there was great anxiety for integrity of the City. No Old Etonian-banker-P. (the implication was) would wittingly give awa) State secret. But surely the point is--or ought have been—would he unwittingly give one awa Casual and infrequent though my acquaints With bankers has been, I have often astonished by their -naivete. Their busint acumen, such as it is, is largely dependent on t' assumption that everybody else will play t game according to their rules. When a Clore or, Fraser comes along andplays it rather differeal! they react like' spoiled' children. I find it only It 'easy to imagine cireumstances in which ast' agents for' some other firm—perhaps' for §0 _other country—could extract vital inforintitlt not from what is said but from the manner which the information is withheld. This is n0! reflection on bankers' characters : a man of ' tegrity may be a poor prevaricator.
And this can be dangerous. There is no spiracy of sinister (or of mediocre) men; t' there is a growing. tendency of the Establishnl to perpetuate itself by circumventing the State.' by using it (for' example, in the distribution State or City jobs) undemocratically. This is lit to prove: there is no known way of demonstfl ing conclusively that the politician turned j1:16, the general turned head of a public corporalt the civil servant turned company director is up to his job. But the sYstem is a bad 'one. 1 11 history of Italy, Denis Mack Smith notes existence, before Mussolini, of a State which Pf, served democratic forms in theory while by-, ing them in practice; And this was one of t' reasons' why Italian dernoeraey collapsed. I-16 too, we can often see the appearance of deo' cracy acting as a front for jobbery; And WC 3 none the better off for, the fact that the jobbers a unaware of their own motives, and would horrified at •being thought undemocratic .or, rupt. The present book hardly scratches' at 01 smooth surface: the subject still awaits its BO
Previous page
