Open letter to Edward Boyle
Sir: Professor Ayer is trying to shift his ground and indulge in legerdemain (Letters, 22 November). His original letter explicitly accused the Conservative party that 'They actively promote such social evils as racial discrimination'. I denied that they did so; Professor Ayer now shifts his ground, but again accuses present Conservative propa- ganda of these aims, on the basis of what he infers that Mr Worsthorne suggests that the Conservatives should do in the course of criticising them for not doing so.
The second piece of legerdemain takes the unexceptionable—and wholly pre-Marxist- thesis that `the economic interests of different classes do not always coincide' (surely inher- ent in the concept of socio-economic classes) and extends this to imply that the interests of the working class and the 'ruling class' conflict so dramatically that the Conserva- live party, which he alleges represents this class exclusively and consciously, must resort to deception and other undesirable prac- tices, to maintain power. This is indeed Marxist mythology. For one thing, both
Conservatives and a majority of social demo- crats believe that the interests of the nation rise above the many 'non-coincidences of interest' not only between classes, but be- tween sub-classes, branches of the economy, town and country, north and south, etc (so, in fact, do Communists in countries they rule, though their societies are far from class- less). Secondly, the majority of the working class hold this to be true whether they vote Conservative or Labour. Thirdly, the Con- servatives believe themselves to be the em- bodiment of the nation par excellence. Professor Ayer ignores this and indulges in the vulgar Marxist ploy of ascribing to them conscious aims which the Marxist dialectic explicitly denies the possibility of their con- ceiving since they are by definition im- prisoned in their false consciousness.
It is difficult for me to believe that Pro- fessor Ayer does not know all this as well as I do. Moreover, such vagueness in the use of words by a man whose academic reputation came from 'journeymanlike' examination and disciplining of words suggests that his ideological fervour and inverted race feeling overcome scholarly inhibitions. When this happens, can one wonder that sections of the student body regress to less mature and civilised forms of political behaviour?
A. Sherman Director, Urban Research Bureau, 51 Bow Lane, London Ec4 Sir : The strictures of the Wykeham Pro- fessor of Humbug (Letters, 22 November) move me not one whit. Of course he is free to say what he likes and sign what he likes in joint letters to the Times, though it might help if he read the letters occasionally. The point is, why should we heed his prolix moralisings?
Neither I nor my brutish fellow Tories care a cavalryman's cuss where Professor Ayer sends his child to school, be it Eton or Bogside Sec. Mod. What we won't take is his moral obliquity that sees no contradic- tion in denouncing the perpetuating of priv- ilege, yet assisting in that very perpetuation by sending his child, as he does, to a school in the private sector. He is a curious mixture of Philippe Egalit6 and St Augustine ('Oh God! make me chaste but not yet'). Perhaps his fellow-socialists can explain it to him.
A. D . Parry Holly Lodge, 15 Manorgate Road, Kingston- upon-Thames, Surrey Sir: If we lived in Hampstead I expect we would send our children to Hampstead Comprehensive, after all what could we lose by that? As it is we shall not be sending them to the local comprehensive school which cannot give them the stimulation their high intelligence needs.
Surely the real test for Professor Ayer (Letters, 22 November) would be to send his son to an East End comprehensive school of the kind I taught in for several years. If he could not do this surely he should resign from the Labour party—since this Govern- ment is about to pass legislation forcing thousands of people to do just this.
Jean Fox 17 Albemarle Avenue, Potters Bar, Herts Sir: Johr. Kirkcaldy (Letters, 15 Novem- ber) states as one reason for the success of the Conservative party the fact that 'there has been a wing of the party who have provided ideas and imagination'. If he implies by this that all the thinkers in the Conservative party are concentrated in one
wing of the party he is mistaken. Too many Conservatives in the liberal wing of the party give the impression that to them alone the secrets of the universe have been revealed and that the traditional Tory wing of the party is necessary only to secure the votes of the brutal and ignorant populace.
I agree with him when he cites the presence of intellectuals like L. S. Amery as strengthening the Conservatives. While he mourns the departure of Sir Edward Boyle we do have Julian Amery to carry on his father's work, who so often in the past has not only been right-wing but right.
Alan Smith 83 Ferguson Avenue, Gidea Park, Romford, Essex
Previous page
