29 October 2015
The Snow White Message
Focusing on the essentials
by John Watson
“Mirror, Mirror, on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all?” So the Queen asked in Snow White and the Seven Dwarves and her emphasis on the importance of self-examination has also been reflected by philosophers of less weight. According to the Greek travel writer Pausanias, the Temple of Apollo at Delphi bore the inscription “γνῶθι σεαυτόν” or “know thyself”. Similarly from the Taoist philosopher Lao Tzu: “He who knows others is wise; he who knows himself is enlightened.” It would be folly to stand out against this weight of authority so perhaps, before looking at the lavish hospitality afforded by the British government to the Chinese Premier Mr Xi Jinping, it is worth asking ourselves who we, the British, actually are.
Marketing men will tell you that a single concept should run through all the operations of an organisation. That might take the form of a long and blathering mission statement of the type written over the front desk of many a commercial concern. The trouble with that is that the longer it is the more people will want to add their favourite bits so it easily loses focus. Much better, then, to have a single word, like. “Integrity”, “competence” or “imagination” and let it run through all aspects of the business. Pushing the concept of “imagination” could result in imaginative designs, imaginative production, imaginative staff relations, imaginative delivery systems and imaginative accounts, an exciting business rather than an investment for widows and orphans. If the theme was “integrity” the result might be less exciting but rather more stable.
The single word chosen to describe the British would, of course, depend upon who chose it. If we chose it ourselves, it might be something like “polite”, “rational”,” entrepreneurial”. If you asked the French to identify the word, the list could be rather different with “perfidious” and “godless” coming somewhere near the top. Clearly there are different views so, as we are unlikely to agree on adjectives, let’s try nouns. Are there any which have been applied to us and have the right resonance? “Pirates”? not bad but perhaps a little too 17th Century. “Academics”? Certainly not, that’s the Germans. What about “shopkeepers” then? That has the advantage of coming from the great Napoleon but is a little narrow. What about “trader” as being an extension of the same idea?
Actually that seems to catch it rather well. As a country we are dependent on our trade; we could not feed ourselves on what we produce. The Royal Navy was built to protect trade. The Empire was expanded by traders founding great companies to protect and operate trading concessions, the Hudson Bay Company, the East India Company, the River Plate Company, and many others besides. Their names ring through English history and the fact that in the end their assets usually ended up with the Crown in no way takes away from their role in expanding the Empire. Yes, a nation of traders seems to describe us quite well.
The visit of Xi Jinping squares nicely with this description. There is little doubt that it was really about trade and that, in return for giving China an open window on the West, the government hoped to secure China as a business partner. The many politenesses is in both directions were those of traders seeking to work to mutual profit. It is in that context that one needs to read the statement by Mr Xi to the effect that he had not come to talk about human rights.
There are many things about the way in which China is run which we do not like, the use of the death penalty, the constraints on political freedom, the persecution of religious minorities. Still that goes for much of the rest of the world too and unless we wish to restrict our trading to the EU and North America, we have to deal with, and sometimes flatter, countries of whose practices we disapprove. That means setting our disapproval to one side when we talk to them in much the way that Mr Xi suggested. It does not mean that we cannot have finer feelings. Simply that they must not become a block to relationships which go to the nation’s lifeblood.
Of course there are limits to this. The government’s withdrawal from the deal under which it was to help train the Saudi prison service is perhaps one of them. We do not approve of the way that the Saudis apply their criminal law and so we do not want to be seen to be propping up that part of their system. That will not stop us co-operating them with them in other areas, however, although the distinction is not an easy one as they can be expected to link the two. In the end, the extent to which principles should be allowed to restrict trade must depend both on the value of that trade and the importance to us of the principles. It is an area of negotiation and a grey one, not an area of clean lines.
It isn’t just in international affairs that it is necessary to isolate issues of disagreement in the context of a broader relationship. Only this week the students’ union of the University of Cardiff protested at Germaine Greer being allowed to give a lecture on “Women & Power: The Lessons of the 20th Century”. Their reason? Her view that a man who has had a sex change operation was not in fact a woman.
No doubt that is a fascinating philological question, but it has precious little to do with the topic on which Ms Greer was to speak. Perhaps then it should be adopted as a general litmus test of respectability and those lecturing on political questions should be asked the question in advance. “Have you ever expressed the view that a man who has had a sex change operation is not a woman?” The trouble is that there must be questions of equal importance on many other similar topics so only those who agreed with the exact views of the students’ union would be invited to lecture at the University. That would certainly thin out the ranks of possible lecturers, in a way a good thing – after all would you really want to hear a lecture from someone who had spent hours agonising about this sort of subject? Unfortunately, however, it would rather take away the point of the University as somewhere where different views are heard and which is capable of producing a synthesis between them. If everyone has to agree before there is any sort of political debate, well, the debate could be on the dull side.
Looked at in this way the Cardiff students have made an error. They have failed to look at the mirror on the wall to see what their University is for. More to the point, however, they have overlooked the point made by Mr Xi. If you’re going to get on with other people, and some element of getting on with others is surely necessary, you have to overlook the fact that you do not agree with them in areas which are not central to your relationship. That applies whether the relationship is one of trade with China or whether it is the relationship between a university and a visiting lecturer.
