Undergraduate Page
THESE ENGLISH
By PETER FARQUHAR (London School of Economics) UNDERSTANDING the English is a formidable task. As a Colonial I labour under certain obvious disadvantages, inevitable prejudices and severely limited contacts. Still, after two years in England, I cannot help coming to certain conclu- sions and making a few tentative generalisations. The fact that I know so little is itself significant. Why is it so extraordinarily diffi- cult to know them ? One simple explanation is that the English are selfish and conceited, but few of us arc satisfied with simple explanations. The reason is, I think, more fundamental ; it involves the Englishman's attitude to life and to society. He is primarily a social animal A rational rather than an emotional being, he worships order and efficiency not only in the workshop and the office .but everywhere, even in his personal relationships. In social life there is no order without law and convention. So the English adhere rigidly to rules and regulations. At first sight this worship of law and order may seem incompatible with the Englishman's admiration for intellectual freedom. In fact, however, he clearly sees that order is the pre-condition of freedom. Unconventional opinions are tolerated so long as there is no eccentric behaviour. The Englishman may have radical political opinions, but he always plays the game. His political party achieves power in the conven- tional manner ; it may then pass unconventional laws, but they will be obeyed in the accepted manner. Those who disagree bide their time and wait their turn. I do not attempt to account for this state of affairs. I merely describe it as it seems to me.
Good government depends on justice. The English excel at government because they believe in justice. Good personal relation-, ships require love. The English have difficulty here because they do not believe in love. Justice is rational ; it demands that every man should receive his due reward. Love is irrational ; it demands that every man should be treated as if he were supremely important, whether he deserves it or not. The English are too conscientious to be so stupid ; that is why they were never converted to Christianity, but rather took Christianity, improved upon it and produced humani- tarianism. Christ said, " Love your neighbour." The English advise, "Give him his due reward "—the sign, of course, of the cool, detached, scientific mind submitting not to abstract principles but to plain, common-sense empiricism.
I will illustrate what I mean with reference to two topics to which I have given some thought—English imperial policy and the English attitude towards coloured colonials. , The discussion of motives in history is always difficult and nearly always futile. As far as individual English adventurers are concerned, no generalisation is possible. Some may have been inspired by the noblest motives of the " white man's burden " and all that ; some, perhaps most, prob- ably did not think much, but were merely energetic and enterprising ; a few may quite well have been just greedy. But of the attitude of the Governments of the country over the whole history of the Empire the only fair judgement is that they did on the whole what they thought was right. Gladstone's Egyptian policy illustrates well the point I wish to make. Strictly speaking Gladstone, in the good old tradition of England in her imperial and international relations, had no policy. He only tried to do what was right. Wilfred Scawen Blunt could not understand Gladstone's apparent insincerity. He could not square the speeches of the Midlothian campaign with the annexation of Egypt. He therefore concluded that Gladstone's public life " was to a large extent a fraud. . . . He constantly put aside his private predilections of policy, until towards the end of his life his own personal impulses of good had assumed the character of tastes rather than of principles." To charge Gladstone with insincerity is to misunderstand him. Blunt had faith in " his own personal impulses of good." Common sense had taught Gladstone to distrust impulses, so that he very often felt called upon to do things which must have been distasteful to him, because like every Englishman he had to do his duty. A mere foreigner applying his own standards of judgement to English policy makes the same
mistake and explains it in terms of the hypocrisy of " perfidious Albion." Judged, of course, by English standards, which are the only standards that can be applied, the policy or lack of it is eminently sensible, and in England the sensible thing is the right thing.
Colour prejudice in England appears to be only a more aggravated form of the general aversion of the English to foreigners. For the English the supreme virtue is always to behave in the proper manner, to obey the rules of the game. The foreigner seldom knows the English rules ; he cannot even speak the language ; so naturally, with the coloured person, the degree of non-conformity is usually greater, with inevitable results. What is, however, so interesting is that the English arc so worried about it (or seem to be). Sir Alan Burns in his recent book* expresses concern. Colour prejudice is such a nuisance. It upsets the smooth functioning of the govern- mental machine in the colonies, and as a conscientious administrator he abhors inefficiency. There has recently been a large crop of letters to The Times expressing grave concern about the fate of coloured colonials in this country. What remedies do they suggest ? Sir Alan Burns suggests that colour prejudice can be ended by the exercise of good manners and good sense on both sides. Others suggest more and better hostels, where colonials can mix freely with the English ; more visits to English homes to see what the English are really like. Some energetic people have already started an agency for week-end visits. Unfortunately, good manners, good sense, more institutions, organisation and agencies will not solve the problem. In fact, self-conscious goodwill does little to improve relationships. Missionary zeal and pious patronage can do incalculable harm.
I was struck, while travelling in Europe last summer, by the con- trast in the European attitude towards coloured people. In London if a child tugs at his mother's skirt and shouts, " Mummy, look at a black man! " the mother, with the good manners typical of the English, looks rather embarrassed and tells him to keep quiet. In Milan or Zagreb the mother turns round and stares, and may even try to attract the attention of others so that they can stare as well Extremely bad manners, indeed, but it is easier to make friends with the Italians and Yugoslays. The trouble about the English is that they are too conscientious ; they take life too seriously. If you are interested in people you do not have to set up institutions and organise contacts with them ; you simply go out and meet them. It's quite simple really. But the Englishman has got to be sure of a fool-proof method which will remove the possibility of error. He has incredible faith in councils, boards, committees, &c. He has all the qualities of the efficient administrator and the good citizen ; his impeccable manners, effortless superiority and scrupulous fairness command admiration and respect, but find some difficulty in winning affection.
Previous page
