It is only too obvious that the Profumo affair will rank as a major political event in Britain’s history of the sixties. What is not so equally obvious immediately is that it might as well come to be regarded as a milestone in the evolution of British society, a decisive stage in the breakdown of class barriers.
The basic fact of illicit relations between the former Secretary of State for War with a vast personal fortune and a self-confessed call girl has been so heavily overlaid by overgrowth, in the form of Miss Christine Keeler’s similarly intimate relations with a Soviet diplomat and Mr John Profumo’s conduct in lying to his Cabinet colleagues and the House of Commons, that it has become difficult to appreciate its social significance. The outburst of moral indignation has similarly clouded this aspect of the affair.
This is not to suggest that this is the first affair of this kind. Like its counterpart elsewhere, the British ruling class has never been innocent of promiscuity and not all such affairs in the past were confined to duchesses.
Social Scene
Gladstone, for instance, once said in self-justification that he had known 13 Prime Ministers and 11 of them were adulterers. Lloyd George was a sexual adventurer on a grand scale. Palmerston, Wellington and Melbourne are among the well-known names in the list of profligates.
What distinguishes the Profumo affair is that it took place in a social setting in which even otherwise the old landmarks are being steadily eroded. Unlike the adventures of his predecessors it is of a piece with the social scene. It symbolises what one perceptive writer has called the process of the de-tribalisation of British society.
Just as spivs and black marketers had become symbols of the age of austerity under the Labour Government from 1945 to 1951, new style tycoons, property dealers and speculators who have amassed huge fortunes in a few brief years, public relations men, model girls, club owners, and young and not so young men-about-town dominate the social scene in the “affluent society” today.
The “affluent society” may not be all that affluent, after all. The Housing Minister, for instance, only recently pointed out that there are still 600,000 slums in the country and two to three million houses do not have either hot water, bathrooms or lavatories. Over four million wage-earners still get less than £500 a year.
Borderline
Old-age pensioners and widows live on the borderline of poverty by Western standards. The rate of economic expansion has been lower than that of any other Western country. British society today is not distinguished so much by general affluence but by the rise of a new class to such levels of prosperity that it sets the pace and the trends.
Today advertising is more profitable than the law. The man who caricatures the Prime Minister on television is as well if not better known and certainly better paid. Entertainers earn scores of times as much as top attorneys. Model girls are better dressed than princesses and give the lead in fashion trends.
This is not to pass a moral judgment, only to note a social fact which cannot be undone either by the Church or the Government. In the past only a small number of bold spirits moved into the top class. They were so well assimilated that they became the most enthusiastic champions of the Establishment. The political and social behaviour of Ramsey MacDonald who deserted the Labour Party and loved the company of duchesses illustrates this point.
Now these “adventurers” have virtually swamped the top class. It is symbolic of the times that “The Observer” should begin a new series on clothes with a television satirist. The same kind of stories circulate about him as we used to hear in India in the twenties and thirties about the Nehru family.
It is doubtful if Princess Margaret was aware of the social significance of her act in marrying a photographer. One can only speculate on whether it could ever before be possible for a commoner to climb into the royal family itself. The fact remains that Mr Armstrong-Jones was the first man to do it and it happened in 1961. That footballers and entertainers are invited to Buckingham Palace tells the same story.
Mr Profumo was not only sexually but also socially promiscuous. Dr Stephen Ward provided the link between the social world of Mr Profumo and that of Miss Christine Keeler. This observation has nothing to do with the validity or otherwise of the charge against him. Mr Profumo was at once the favourite of the Queen Mother and lover of Miss Keeler. Dr Ward moved as freely among the royalty as among call girls and West Indians with several convictions.
Anyone conversant with the social scene in Britain today would not be surprised that the Conservative supporters in Mr Profumo’s constituency of Stratford-on-Avon have not only quickly rallied to the party banner but are not unsympathetic to Mr Profumo himself. Interviews by television reporters with Conservative Party workers, both men and women, told the same story of indifference to the question of sexual morality as such. Young women accepted extra-marital relations as part of normal life these days.
Girls’ Opinion
Independent Television extended its investigation wider to cover a sample of one million single girls between the ages of 22 and 34 and returned the same verdict. The girls saw no essential connection between sexual intimacy and marriage before or after marriage. What they were interested in was the enjoyment of life itself.
This is by no means to agree that Britain is a decadent country. Only, I remain convinced that the insistent demand for a moral liberal attitude towards sex of the recent past is not going to be overwhelmed by the current outburst of indignation. After all, 50,000 children – one out of every eight in London and one out of every 16 in England and Wales – were born out of wedlock last year. Given the social context in which class distinctions are being blurred social promiscuity will grow. No ritual sacrifice can defeat the facts of life.
The Times of India, 23 June 1963