The curious monomania of Mrs May

It may be that Theresa May finds Tony Blair uniquely irritating – a position with which I can sympathise – but her condemnation of his call for a second referendum is uncharacteristically intemperate:

“For Tony Blair to go to Brussels and seek to undermine our negotiations by advocating for a second referendum is an insult to the office he once held and the people he once served.

She added: “We cannot, as he would, abdicate responsibility for this decision.

“Parliament has a democratic duty to deliver what the British people voted for.”

After all, her distinguished predecessor John Major has said much the same thing, on more than one occasion, and drawn no such opprobrium.

Let us be clear what Mrs May is calling an abdication of responsibility, an insult to the office of Prime Minister and the British people – it is that the same British people should be consulted, democratically, on the most serious issue to face this country for decades, perhaps since the War.

There is something mysterious here: why has Mrs May so determinedly set her face against the one course of action that might actually get her, and the country, out of the mess in which it finds itself, thanks to the blundering incompetence of David Cameron?

The matter becomes stranger still when you consider that her opposition to a second referendum – like that of the ERG, and Brexiters generally– is founded on the conviction that it would stop Brexit – which of course it could only do if the majority of the British people expressed the view that they did not wish to leave the EU. Brexiters bizarrely call this ‘stealing Brexit’ though how the British people (who are supposed to have voted for it in the first place) can steal from themselves they do not attempt to explain.

We need to be clear that the only justification for proceeding with Brexit is that you are confident both that it is the right course for the country and enjoys the support of the majority of the British people – yet if you genuinely have that confidence, then you must believe that a second referendum would confirm it.

The perplexing truth is that Mrs May neither believes that Brexit is the right course for the country, nor is she confident that it enjoys the support of the British people. For evidence of the first assertion, you need look no further than Mrs May herself, speaking in 2016, before the referendum:

(and note the clarity of her analysis in the clip above set against the inanity of her Prime Ministerial utterances, such as ‘Brexit means Brexit’.)

For the evidence of the second, that she can have no confidence that Brexit enjoys the support of the British people, you need look no further than the result of the first referendum*, which tells us that at the very most only 17.4 million people (out of an electorate of 46.5 million and a population of 65.5 million) have actually expressed a desire to leave the EU. In other words, there is not now, nor has there ever been, a majority of people who want Brexit.  (for a fuller treatment of this point, see The Real Enemies of the People.  and When simple arithmetic is the elephant in the room)

So how has Theresa May, a professed Remainer, perfectly capable of making an articulate case to support her view, ended up relentlessly ploughing ahead on a course that she knows to be mistaken, and setting her face against the one thing that might actually resolve the situation for the better?

I do know that she is a vicar’s daughter, so I would guess that she might have a strong sense of duty; I don’t know if she’s a fan of John Buchan, but I can’t help thinking there are parallels between this scene from Greenmantle and  her accession to the premiership:

‘How does one make a great decision? I swear that when I turned round to speak I meant to refuse. But my answer was Yes, and I had crossed the Rubicon. My voice sounded cracked and far away.

Sir Walter shook hands with me and his eyes blinked a little.

‘I may be sending you to your death, Hannay – Good God, what a damned task-mistress duty is! – If so, I shall be haunted with regrets, but you will never repent. Have no fear of that. You have chosen the roughest road, but it goes straight to the hill-tops.’

 

Hannay, it should be said, has been having a good war – he finds soldiering to his taste, likes the company of his brother officers, and is like to end up a brigadier provided he stays alive. What Sir Walter Bullivant pitches him is a mission that will take him away from all that and will very likely get him killed, but he pitches it to him in terms of his duty to his country – and Hannay accepts.

My reading is that May desperately wanted to be Prime Minister but felt that in order to do so she would have to jettison her own clearly-articulated views on Brexit  – so she recast it as a matter of Higher Duty and self-sacrifice: it was not about what she wanted, but what the country wanted – they would have their Brexit, at whatever cost, and no personal consideration of hers could come into it. Hence her dogged and illogical pursuit of a course that she knows to be wrong and against the national interest: it is a species of folie à deux between her and the Brexit voters, that noisy minority of 17.4 million people – ‘Dammit, I sacrificed my principles to give you this stupid course you voted for, so don’t think for a minute I’m going to let you change your mind!’

And if that sounds crazy, well – it is. But bear in mind that she is surrounded by people who think nothing of making a minority a majority, of saying the British people can steal from themselves, and that to give them a say on a matter of national importance is a betrayal of democracy; the lunatics, in short, have taken over the asylum.

It puts me in mind of Hamlet and the gravediggers:

HAMLET Ay, marry, why was he sent into England?
First Clown: Why, because he was mad: he shall recover his wits
there; or, if he do not, it’s no great matter there.
HAMLET Why?
First Clown: ‘Twill not be seen in him there; there the men are as mad as he.

*though you may also consider her latest word on the matter (17.12.18), which really is Through the Looking Glass stuff:

‘But Mrs May will tell MPs on Monday: “Let us not break faith with the British people by trying to stage another referendum.

“Another vote which would do irreparable damage to the integrity of our politics, because it would say to millions who trusted in democracy, that our democracy does not deliver.

“Another vote which would likely leave us no further forward than the last.

“And another vote which would further divide our country at the very moment we should be working to unite it.”

(from BBC News website – my italics)

Note, first, the Freudian-slip-like ambiguity of ‘Another’ which suggests that she imputes all the faults she claims a second referendum would bring to the first referendum also. Then consider the words I have emphasised – a second referendum ‘would likely leave the country no further forward than the last‘ and ‘would further divide’ it.

In other words, she accepts that the first vote divided the country and did not take us forward, yet she is still insisting that it is her mandate to proceed with Brexit, and that  to allow another would somehow be ‘to break faith with the British people’ – what, all of them? or just the 17.4 million who voted for Brexit, many of whom would not do so again? – and ‘would say to millions… [again, how many? 17.4 or 65.5?] … that our democracy does not deliver’. How and why would giving people a say in their future do that, especially when you yourself believe them to be divided on the issue?

This is lunacy. It must stop.

‘These great concurrences of things’

20160423_162851

One of the main ideas I pursue here is that the invention of writing has radically altered the way we think, not immediately, but eventually, through its impact on speech, which it transforms from one mode of expression among many into our main instrument of thought, which we call Language, in which the spoken form is dominated by the written and meaning is no longer seen as embedded in human activity but rather as a property of words, which appear to have an independent, objective existence. (This notion is examined in the form of a fable here)

This means in effect that the Modern world begins in Classical Greece, about two and a half thousand years ago, and is built on foundations laid by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle; though much that we think of as marking modernity is a lot more recent (some would choose the Industrial Revolution, some the Enlightenment, some the Renaissance) the precondition for all of these – the way of seeing ourselves in the world which they imply – is, I would argue, the change in our thinking outlined above.

This naturally gives rise to the question of how we thought before, which is not a matter of merely historical interest, since we are not talking here about one way of thinking replacing another, but rather a new mode displacing and dominating the existing one, which nevertheless continues alongside, albeit in a low estate, a situation closely analogous to an independent nation that is invaded and colonised by an imperial power.

What interests me particularly is that this ancient mode of thought, being ancient – indeed, primeval – is instinctive and ‘natural’ in the way that speech is (and Language, as defined above, is not). Unlike modern ‘intellectual’ thought, which marks us off from the rest of the animal kingdom (something on which we have always rather plumed ourselves, perhaps mistakenly, as I suggested recently) this instinctive mode occupies much the same ground, and reminds us that what we achieve by great ingenuity and contrivance (remarkable feats of construction, heroic feats of navigation over great distances, to name but two) is done naturally and instinctively by ants, bees, wasps, spiders, swifts, salmon, whales and many others, as a matter of course.

So how does this supposed ‘ancient mode’ of thought work? I am pretty sure that metaphor is at the heart of it. Metaphor consists in seeing one thing in terms of another, or, if you like, in seeing something in the world as expressing or embodying your thought; as such, it is the basic mechanism of most of what we term Art: poetry, storytelling, painting, sculpture, dance, music, all have this transformative quality in which different things are united and seen as aspects of one another, or one is seen as the expression of the other – they become effectively interchangeable.

(a key difference between metaphorical thinking and analytic thinking – our modern mode – is that it unites and identifies where the other separates and makes distinctions – which is why metaphor always appears illogical or paradoxical when described analytically: ‘seeing the similarity in dissimilars’ as Aristotle puts it, or ‘saying that one thing is another’)

This long preamble was prompted by an odd insight I gained the other day when, by a curious concatenation of circumstances, I found myself rereading, for the first time in many years, John Buchan’s The Island of Sheep.

Now Buchan is easy to mock – the values and attitudes of many of his characters are very much ‘of their time’ and may strike us as preposterous, if not worse – but he knows how to spin a yarn, and there are few writers better at evoking the feelings aroused by nature and landscape at various times and seasons. He was also widely and deeply read, a classical scholar, and his popular fiction (which never pretended to be more than entertainment and generally succeeded) has a depth and subtlety not found in his contemporaries.

What struck me in The Island of Sheep were two incidents, both involving the younger Haraldsen. Haraldsen is a Dane from the ‘Norlands‘ – Buchan’s name for the Faeroes. He is a gentle, scholarly recluse who has been raised by his father – a world-bestriding colossus of a man, a great adventurer – to play some leading part in an envisaged great revival of the ‘Northern Race’, a role for which he is entirely unfitted. He inherits from his father an immense fortune, in which he is not interested, and a vendetta or blood-feud which brings him into conflict with some ruthless and unscrupulous men.

Early in the book, before we know who he is, he encounters Richard Hannay and his son Peter John (another pair of opposites). They are out wildfowling and Peter John flies his falcon at an incoming skein of geese; it separates a goose from the flight and pursues it in a thrilling high-speed chase, but the goose escapes by flying low and eventually gaining the safety of a wood. ‘Smith’ (as Haraldsen is then known) is moved to tears, and exclaims
‘It is safe because it was humble. It flew near the ground. It was humble and lowly, as I am. It is a message from Heaven.’
He sees this as an endorsement of the course he has chosen to evade his enemies, by lying low and disguising himself.

Later, however, he takes refuge on Lord Clanroyden’s estate, along with Richard Hannay and his friends, who in their youth in Africa had sworn an oath to old Haraldsen to look after his son, when they were in a tight spot. They attend a shepherd’s wedding and after the festivities there is a great set-to among the various sheepdogs, with the young pretenders ganging up to overthrow the old top-dog, Yarrow, who rather lords it over them. The old dog fights his corner manfully but is hopelessly outnumbered, then just as all seems lost, he turns from defence to attack and sallies out against his opponents with great suddenness and ferocity, scattering them and winning the day.

20160423_165527

Again, Haraldsen is deeply moved:

‘It is a message to me,’ he croaked. ‘That dog is like Samr, who died with Gunnar of Lithend. He reminds me of what I had forgotten.’

He abandons his scheme of running and hiding and resolves to return to his home, the eponymous Island of Sheep, and face down his enemies, thus setting up the climax of the book (it’s not giving too much away to reveal that good triumphs in the end, though of course it’s ‘a dam’ close-run thing’).

Both these incidents have for me an authentic ring: I can well believe that just such ‘seeing as’ played a key role in the way our ancestors thought about the world and their place in it.

It is, of course, just the kind of thing that modern thinking labels ‘mere superstition’ but I think it should not be dismissed so lightly.

The modern objection might be phrased like this: ‘the primitive mind posits a ruling intelligence, an invisible force that controls the world and communicates through signs – bolts of lightning, volcanic eruptions, comets and other lesser but in some way striking events. The coincidence of some unusual or striking occurrence in nature with a human crisis is seen as a comment on it, and may be viewed (if preceded by imploration) as the answer to prayer. We know better: these are natural events with no connection to human action beyond fortuitous coincidence.’

The way I have chosen to phrase this illustrates a classic problem that arises when modern thinking seeks to give an account of ancient or traditional thinking – ‘primitive’ thinking, if you like, since I see nothing pejorative in being first and original. The notion of cause and effect is key to any modern explanation, so we often find that ‘primitive’ thinking is characterised by erroneous notions of causality – basically, a causal connection is supposed where there is none.

For instance, in a talk I heard by the the philosopher John Haldane, he cited a particular behaviour known as ‘tree binding’ in which trees were wounded and bound as a way of treating human wounds – a form of what is called ‘sympathetic magic’, where another object acts as a surrogate for the person or thing we wish to affect (or, to be more precise, ‘wish to be affected’). An account of such behavior in causal terms will always show it to be mistaken and apparently foolish – typical ‘primitive superstition’: ‘They suppose a causal connection between binding the tree’s wound and binding the man’s, and that by healing the one, they will somehow heal the other (which we know cannot work).’

But I would suggest that the tree-binding is not a mistaken scientific process, based on inadequate knowledge – it is not a scientific process at all, and it is an error to describe it in those terms. It is, I would suggest, much more akin to both prayer and poetry. The ritual element – the play-acting – is of central importance.

The tree-binders, I would suggest, are well aware of their ignorance in matters of medicine: they do not know how to heal wounds, but they know that wounds do heal; and they consider that the same power (call it what you will) that heals the wound in a tree also heals the wound in man’s body. They fear that the man may die but hope that he will live, and they know that only time will reveal the outcome.

Wounding then binding the tree seems to me a ritual akin to prayer rather than a misguided attempt at medicine. First and foremost, it is an expression of hope, like the words of reassurance we utter in such cases – ‘I’m sure he’ll get better’. The tree’s wound will heal (observation tells them this) – so, too, might the man’s.

But the real power of the ritual, for me, lies in its flexibility, its openness to interpretation. It is a very pragmatic approach, one that can be tailored to suit any outcome. If the man lives, well and good; that is what everyone hoped would happen. Should the man die, the tree (now identified with him in some sense) remains (with its scar, which does heal). The tree helps reconcile them to the man’s death by showing it in a new perspective: though all they have now is his corpse, the tree is a reminder that this man was more than he seems now: he had a life, spread over time. Also, the continued survival of the tree suggests that in some sense the man, too, or something of him that they cannot see (the life or soul which the tree embodies) may survive the death of his body. The tree can also be seen as saying something about the man’s family (we have the same image ourselves in ‘family tree’, though buried some layers deeper) and how it survives without him, scarred but continuing; and by extension, the same applies to the tribe, which will continue to flourish as the tree does, despite the loss of an individual member.

And the tree ‘says’ all these things because we give it tongue – we make it tell a story, or rather we weave it into one that is ongoing (there are some parallels here to the notion of ‘Elective Causality’ that I discuss elsewhere). As I have argued elsewhere [‘For us, there is only the trying‘] we can only find a sign, or see something as a sign, if we are already looking for one and already think in those terms. Haraldsen, in The Island of Sheep, is troubled about whether he has chosen the right course, and finds justification for it in the stirring sight of the goose evading the falcon; later, still troubled about the rightness of his course, he opts to change it, stirred by the sight of the dog Yarrow turning the tables on his opponents.

His being stirred, I think, is actually the key here. It would be an error to suppose that he is stirred because he sees the goose’s flight and the dog’s bold sally as ‘messages from heaven’; the reverse is actually the case – he calls these ‘messages from heaven’ to express the way in which they stir him. There is a moment when he identifies, first with the fleeing goose, then with the bold dog. What unites him with them in each case is what he feels. But this is not cause and effect, which is always a sequence; rather, this is parallel or simultaneous – the inner feeling and the outward action are counterparts, aspects of the same thing. A much closer analogy is resonance, where a plucked string or a struck bell sets up sympathetic vibration in another.

This is why I prefer Vita Sackville West’s definition of metaphor to Aristotle’s: for him, metaphor is the ability to see the similarity in dissimilar things; for her, (the quote is from her book on Marvell)

‘The metaphysical poets were intoxicated—if one may apply so excitable a word to writers so severely and deliberately intellectual—by the potentialities of metaphor. They saw in it an opportunity for expressing their intimations of the unknown and the dimly suspected Absolute in terms of the known concrete, whether those intimations related to philosophic, mystical, or intellectual experience, to religion, or to love. They were ‘struck with these great concurrences of things’’

A subject to which I shall return.