146
VARI ElY
ENGLISH QUEERDOM
In
England, we have a
political device for solving social
problems without solving them:
this is called a Royal Commis–
sion. Faced with some burning
question, the government of the
day appoints a dozen men and
women of impeccable repute
(and rarely specialized aware–
ness) who examine and report
upon the problem. This task
takes years, during which the
government is absolved from
doing anything and it is deemed
irresponsible to recall that the
question, unaware of the Com·
mission, is still burning brightly.
In
course of time the commis·
sioners surface from the depths ;
and whoever they may be, their
findings are sure to be "progres–
sive" since so many English
social customs they are called
upon to probe are not. Now
please admire a hallowed piece
of governmental legerdemain.
The public, even after all these
years, assumes that the report
reflects the official view, or else
that it will influence the govern–
ment in its subsequent legisla–
tion.
In
fact very few, and
sometimes none, of any Com–
mission's recommendations ever
become law; but nobody notices
tl-.is because the subject
is
now
thought to have been "well
ventilated." (Why eminent citi–
zens give months of their lives
for free to these commissions
may be explained by the Eng–
lishman's love of a committee,
of judging his fellows, and of
anything called "royal.")
A weird recent example of
this social-political safety valve
(it is no more than that) is the
so-called Wolfenden Report of
September 1957, named after
the chairman of a commission
that brooded for three years on
the twin themes of
Homosexual
Offences and Prostitution in
Great Britain.
The first thing
that will surely strike anyone
not English (almost everyone)
about this is, why are these two
utterly distinct social questions
linked as a subject for joint
study by persons who would
most probably be ill informed
about them both (let alone
about either)? When consider–
ing motivation in English social–
sexual matters no theory is too
improbable, and these can
be
advanced with confidence. The
first is that the total difference
between these two "sex prob.
lems" just didn't strike any gov–
ernmental brain. Then, delving
for unconscious (or possibly
Machiavellian) motives, one
may assess that the junction of
these disparate themes seemed
to the legislators to present a
