MR CHURCHILL AND CHANGE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25734, 4 January 1945, Page 6

MR CHURCHILL AND CHANGE

Sir,—Speakjng to the members of the Primrose League. Mr Churchill is reported in your issue of to-day quoting Disraeli thus: "In a progressive country change is constant and the great question is not whether you should resist change, which is inevitable, but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, customs, laws, and traditions of the people or in deference to abstract principles and arbitrary and general doctrines.” This is one of those platitudinous statements which sounds well and with many wins a ready assent and yet. upon analysis of its terms, it is discovered to be fallacious in its import and to have little practical value. The fallacy lies in the fact that manners, customs, laws, traditions are, without ouestion, assumed to be good, and are therefore safe guides for decisions when changes are proposed. Of these lour elements in social life it can be said that, in tlte sphere of human activities affected by them, laws have been the most considerate and just. The other three have an academic interest, and to that extent are worthy of note; but of themselves they have no inherent value for they have not included within their ambit the welfare of the entire mass of the people of any period. Indeed, serious reflection will reveal an inherent defect in manners, customs, and traditions as guides to action or deterrents to change. The defect lies in the fact that they are concerned with the past and are devoid of vision. Our manners, customs, and traditions at no time can show a genuine concern for the wellbeing of every member of the community, and it is just at this point that one should critically examine sentimental suggestions that may be harmful to human life and development. Disraeli, in contradistinction to deference to manners, customs, and traditions, discountenances deference to abstract principles and arbitrary and general doctrines. This, however, is just one of those little devices o£ oratory which too often pass muster for wisdom. Abstract principles and arbitrary and general doctrines are not necessarily the only antithesis of manners, customs, and traditions. To reject the latter by no means presupposes the acceptance of the former. There is another and wiser course to adopt. It lies in -appraising at its true worth the value of human life, with all its varied gifts and potentialities. Having recognised these, the next step is to devise some system which will provide opportunities and facilities for the development of these gifts and the general elevation of human life. If the truth be told, our manners, customs, and traditions are a sorry record of Indifference to the sacred nature of personality and a colossal wastage of human talents. A great change of mind and purpose to rectify this sad state of affairs is long overdue, and it is to be hoped that no empty sentiment, which oan bear neither the scrutiny of reason nor justice, will be allowed to hinder this change being made as soon as possible.—l am, etc., Dunedin, January 3 Humanity.