Monovian Editorial 1967

SUMMER 1967

No. 90

Editors: G. A. SWAN, C. C. POND
Sub-Editors:
School Notes-S. J. BREAME School Visits-T. W. HUTCHINGS

School Societies-D. GILMORE

Sports Section-A. D. CLARK, R. MANN Literary Section-C. C. POND

SPEAKING EDITORIALLY

Change, it would seem, is the only constancy of our time; a paradox one might say, but nonetheless true. Change, provoked not only by the forces of circumstance, but the result of the labour of vast numbers of planners, or perhaps, the fulfilment of mere wild hope, affects all of our lives to an unprecedented degree. it is, seemingly, always for the good. and never regressive. We are given the impression that reaction is always evil, that there is some great inherent virtue in making changes and innovations, despite the very valid evidence of tradition and experience.
We of the generation which has grown up under the uneasy peace of the 'fifties know of change only as a word. We have no first-hand knowledge of the period before that decade, and therefore can have no means of adjudging the violence of the effects of the changes that characterised those years. Yet we have lived through a time which has seen momentous upsurges of the previously-accepted order, on a world basis, nationally and to the personal lives of us all.
Evolution rather than revolution has been typical of our time but evolution is by no means the less potent agent of change. Our lifetimes have contained the appearance of nations, cast from the still firmly-established colonial order of fifteen years ago. A new great power, in the form of China, has risen to prominence. Europe, so long dominant in world affairs, has diminished in importance to the status of "having certain aspects of its security" discussed by an American and an Asian power at a Summit Conference.
The Britain of today differs radically from that even I can remember. We dispensed with ration-books, identity-cards and clothing-coupons. We entered a period of affluence, to use the description of the times. We magnanimously gave our colonies their independence. Affluence merged into national impecuniosity, The rest of our colonies took their independence, perhaps rather more with malevolence than in servile gratitude.
And why shall I remember the 'fifties and early 'sixties? The first two decades of one's life are always reckoned to be the most formative, and thus, in common with most others, I shall remember childhood becoming gradually replaced under the mass of problems that could be no longer accepted without question, or glossed-over in blind trust. I shall remember the long years at school, perhaps with nostalgia, perhaps with mild contempt for my own personality at that time.
I shall remember. That is certain. Whether I shall regret, approve or remain indifferent to the changes that will have altered my life, and my environment-only the future can tell. Wild progressivism may be my attitude, or just as likely, total reaction. But whatever one's standpoint, change must be accepted. A Russian says "Why not ?" while the British ask "Why ?" we are told. But on occasions and this decade is one of them-this attitude is not the mood of the vast majority. It seems as if the British public, having gained a standard in a particular field by one means has now decided to seek to improve it by another.
It is therefore pointless to resist planned change when it is so considerable a part of the pattern of things, and when the overwhelming mood of the many is inclined to search for betterment in the unknown. So, the individual must if his views do not happen to concur with those of that majority, adapt to that which is inevitable. There is little room for continued resistance or to merely sustain the injury to the pride of one's own philosophy by sulking petulantly and bemoaning the harshness of fate.
Internationally, it is useless to think that Britain's former status of an Imperial power will ever return. We cannot hope to witness the decline of the new powers, as events stand. In years to come, membership of, and perhaps union with, the Common Market will be accepted just as the concept of the United Kingdom is now.
Impending internal reforms - decimal currency, criminal justice, law amendment, revision of county boundaries, the law on abortion-may seen unnecessary, inappropriate or otherwise distasteful now. But they are, in their context, much less revolutionary than many that are now accepted as a normal part of life. They will change the pattern of life of the nation to an extent, but their effect will not be drastic.
And we must not ourselves forget that changes must take place. We have twelve months before a semi-comprehensive educational system replaces that we have known. We must use these
months, not in remembering our past pride and achievement, but in preparation for what is to come, It must be the duty of every Monovian-from the First Former to the School Captain, to ensure that the transition is effected as efficiently and dispassionately as possible.
Given this co-operation due to it, the new system will not fail. Just as in the nineteenth century, the school was reorganised for boys only, just as in this century, it accepted the rule of the County authorities, in place of its previously-independent status, just as it developed from a village school in one room to an urban establishment in a dozen acres, so will its spirit, its traditions and its standards accept this change-a change which is much less radical than George Monoux's original decision, four hundred and forty years ago, to provide for the education of the children of Walthamstow-itself an innovation, which, after all, was the start of it all.
Why, therefore, must we be bound to distrust change . . .?

C.C.P.