Why We Must Go On
Say Not The Struggle!
Weariness and despondency are apt to engulf even the stoutest hearts when called upon to do battle against what appear to be overwhelming odds. And yet, and yet, if having done all things, we stiffen the sinews and stand, victory is always to be snatched from the jaws of defeat.
The size of the task facing CTCC is clear from the Survey of Developments in the Cathedral Choirs of the United Kingdom, which showed that over a quarter of our cathedrals already had a girls' choir. And of the rest, a large majority planned to establish them. That was two years ago, since when even more cathedrals have jumped on the bandwagon. These bald facts seem to spell out a bleak and unredeemable future for the genuine tradition - so much so that some ask themselves if there is any point in continuing to oppose developments. "That's the way the wind is blowing,' they argue. 'CTCC has acted too late. And in any case, we are not the ones who can do anything about it. Deans and Chapters are laws unto themselves and they can get away with it because the public is ignorant and could not care less anyway. The fact is, girls' choirs are here. They are not going to go away just because we are unhappy with them.' And for good measure, they often go on to add that girls' choirs are only one element in a much larger picture of unwelcome innovation. In short, they imply, we are resisting the irresistible.
Yet, there is no justification for such gloom. Isaiah Berlin reminded us in his Historical Inevitability of the putative words of Justice Brandeis: "The irresistible is often only that which is not resisted." And in this same work, he recalls the words of Bernard Berenson written in the middle of the Second World War: "I believe less and less in these more doubtful and certainly dangerous dogmas, which tend to make us accept whatever happens as irresistible and foolhardy to oppose."
The notions of irresistibility and inevitability go back in history a very long way indeed and are the stock in trade of the progressive school of thought. This sees human history as constant change towards limitless perfectibility. One version of this philosophy is Hegel, Marx and Spengler's A March of History which has held such horrid sway over the lives of millions in more recent times. Indeed, the word 'progressive' has now acquired rather disreputable and pejorative connotations. In this philosophy, the past must and will be swept away, just because it is the past - the future being, by definition, an improvement on what went before.
Of equal antiquity is the view which sees history as a decline from some mythical Golden Age, the admirable characteristics of which were timeless stability and immutability. On this view, 'change', as in Lyte's hymn, is always associated with 'decay'.
Less prominent but much more realistic than either of the above models is one which values slow, evolutionary change - but only where there is evident benefit to be had from it. Nature itself seems to favour such a path. The skill, of course, lies in the ability to assess where change might be needed and to avoid evolution turning into revolution.
That notions like Progress, The March of History and Historical Destiny continue to lure us is testimony to the power they hold qua ideas. They answer the urge for the quick fix. And for the more thoughtful, comfort can be drawn from the belief that there is order in life and that nature develops its own patterns - irrespective of anything we may think or do. According to this philosophy, things are what they are and their consequences will be what they will be. Nothing we can do can alter them and we should accept the fact stoically, if we are unable to accept it with delight. The future, though unknowable, is laid down and fixed.
Such a philosophy may have great persuasive force, but it is entirely spurious. Since the future is unknowable, we cannot say whether it will be good or bad. Although some philosophers may declare it invalid to ascribe subjective attributes to future events or states of affair, the ordinary mortal has his own very clear ideas of what good and bad mean.
The progressive theory of history, which deals in pseudo-scientific notions of inevitability and the futility of resistance, takes no account of contrary forces at work, often burrowing away secretly, which have the potential for dynamic and effective resistance against what, on the surface, seems unstoppable. Nor need such forces be very large to be effective. The lurch of events can be stopped dead in its tracks by the slightest thing - even by accident. It is in this way that solutions have been found to apparently insoluble scientific problems and lost battles have turned into famous victories. A trawl through any history book will throw up many such examples. The defeat of Napoleon in 1812 by the Russians is the classic one. In War and Peace, Tolstoy set himself the task of analysing how it was that Russia was saved from the brink of seemingly inevitable disaster. I think he would have felt very much at home with chaos theory.
Our activity and belief are part of those forces which burrow away, slowly undermining the complacent assurance of those who think everything is sewn up. But if we speak and act as though the girls' choir movement is bound to win out, then we are contributing to its likely success. And if we believe it useless to resist, we release ourselves from responsibility for what happens. Our consciences are assuaged and we escape from any moral blame which might attach to doing nothing.
In real life, however, none of us believes in inevitability. Suppose, for instance, we have accidentally left a wallet with a large sum of money in it in a place known for the number of light fingers it attracts. Even though we realise our chances of recovering it are slim, we still go back and hope to find it. And on the sports field, although a team may seem invincible and resistance appear mere foolishness, opposing teams still go out to meet them, determined to win.
If all this is so, then why do we sometimes feel compelled to accede to the supposedly inevitable? Once again, Isaiah Berlin gives us the answer. The desire to give into 'irresistible forces', he says, always comes "at moments of confusion and inner weakness. It is one of the great alibis pleaded by those who cannot and do not wish to face the facts of human responsibility... Either because they have been too deeply wounded or frightened to wish to return to the traffic of normal life, or because they are filled with moral indignation against the false values and the, to them, repellent moral codes of their own society, or class, or profession... "
Another point perhaps worth making is that 'inevitability' is sometimes confused with 'likelihood'. They are not the same. When we say such and such a thing is likely to happen or not happen, all we mean is that going on past experience there is a higher-than-chance probability it will or will not happen. The likelihood of something happening may or may not affect our actions. Some years ago, as readers will remember, people were persuaded of a mere possibility - not even a probability - that they would contract salmonellosis if they continued to eat eggs. Result: the sale of eggs plummeted. And yet, whilst egg consumption still continues to pose a danger, sales have more or less recovered. That is how in real life we tend to deal with questions of possibility or probability.
In military, political and religious matters, however, we are often persuaded to concede defeat almost at once - as though a likelihood was an unalterable 'given'. A likelihood or probability arises from a particular set of circumstances. If these circumstances change, the degree of probability changes too. New and unforeseen circumstances may arise which will also affect the degree of probability. Thus it was that 20 years ago almost no one was predicting the downfall of Soviet power in Eastern Europe - experts included. To many, at that time, it seemed futile even to think that that great military machine might collapse.
The parallel with our Campaign is clear. The girls' choir trend may seem set to roll on. Yet, if that is how we read the runes, we ought to remember that rune-reading has never enjoyed great scientific prestige or success. In truth, what turns a possibility into a probability and a probability into a reality is our own despairing acquiescence. History, however, does not justify despondency. As Hugh Thomas says: "One of the benefits of a study of history is that it suggests that it is always possible to reverse, as Plato puts it, an apparently fatal tendency towards decay, however late the hour."
Finally, whatever action we take to protect our all-male choirs, we may not succeed - certainly we shall not succeed, if we throw in the towel before we have really got going. But however great the odds and however unclear the outcome, we ought surely to strive might and main to save the tradition we love. Perhaps a metaphor will help. Imagine a couple being approached by some 6-foot hulk of unimaginable strength and aggression. He threatens violence to the woman. The husband may be weak, mild-mannered and physically ineffective, but would he not be honour bound at least to try and defend his wife? His efforts might prove unavailing, but that would be no excuse for not trying. Even so, Goliath might still meet his come-uppance! Life has a very strange way of proving us wrong.
There is then no reason or need for us to feel discouraged. Time lost raging at what is happening can be more profitably spent doing our bit and best for the Campaign. Our choral tradition demands and deserves no less from each of us. Let us not fail it!