Silk: The need to go back to class

In much the same way “justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done,” the quality of class should not simply be had, but must be lived. Without class, we remain ordinary hewers of wood and drawers of water—a curse threatened in the Book of Joshua. In the latest T&T social turbulence, the matter of “silk” has questioned the locus of our class. It appears to have deserted some who applied for silk, some who vetted the applications, some who made the selections, some who approved, some who presented, and some who accepted. While it would be beneath us to tar with a broad brush, there is a lingering discomfort with the processes relevant to this traditional exercise. But as others hopefully begin to reconstruct these processes, we wish to draw attention to the main thread with which the silk tradition is woven: class.

There is a danger, in T&T of 2012, that we may be losing our awareness of class. Not the “class” that makes us prejudiced or pompous, that gives a false superiority, but the class that moves us to be better than ordinary, imbuing our thinking with gravitas, our judgment with clarity, and our moral and social fibre with muscularity. It is this class that renders us impartial in our policymaking, courteous in our conduct, sober in our language, proper in our appearance, and civil in our treatment of others. Class shapes us to be considerate road-users, caring teachers, mannerly youngsters, thoughtful parents, polite police officers and ethical business practitioners.

 
In the silk controversy, the views expressed by two of the most eminent sons of our jurisprudential soil remind us to bring much greater thought to our civic duties than it takes to choose winners in a teen talent contest. Those views have been eloquent, erudite, well ventilated—the epitome of class. It now behoves us to focus on what should be done from here. The Chief Justice may wish to take the lead since he has unique responsibility ensconced in his very title “chief” and “justice.” He should graciously return the award, doing so in the stately manner that we have come to expect of him. The country may well accept his explanation that this award was not of his own doing, that his acceptance was without vanity aforethought, and that his Christian contrition teaches that more care should be taken by all of us to not be seduced, and reduced, by the present pandemic of award presentations.

And rather than allow a spokesman to brush off inquiries with the imperious-sounding response that “he has nothing more to say on this matter,” the Chief Justice may be minded that the society would be well-served by his opinion on who should receive silk, and how. The country would be less forgiving of politicians who fall prey to the malfeasance of not only feathering their nests but attempting to do so with the plummage of peacocks. This silk is too expensive to be used as taylaylay. The Attorney-General and the Prime Minister would also receive our acclaim if they were to reverse their acceptance, thereby demonstrating that they prefer to seek silk only via the dignity of distance from influential public  office,  rather  than  risk  the  reputation  of being self-seeking while in a position of power.

The nation stands puzzled by a President who recently sought to convince us his “office is not emptily ceremonial,” but whose office now appears to not have asked challenging enough questions when a list of awardees was passed to it simply to be announced as if by a bingo game master of ceremonies. His title, too, carries a demand—that of “excellence.” He must personify standards which give and maintain our class as a quality that embodies excellence.

We all stand in what can be a salutary learning moment. Let us get it clear that this silk is not for dress-makers and tailors, but for the designers of our own classic outfitting. Let us not forget the many exemplars of class with which our country has been gifted. Whether Stollmeyer batting or Neehall sermonising; Robinson or Seukeran debating in Parliament; Williams, Montano or Solomon on the hustings; Wooding or Wharton, Hosein or Hannays on the Bench or at the Bar; McBurnie or Minshall on stage; Despers, Patasar, James or Naipaul rhapsodising…countless Trinidadians/Tobagonians have been exemplars of not just form, which is temporary, but class which is permanent. Whether we see ourselves as arriving here in crocus-bag, or growing up in cotton, it is for us to take silk as our testimony of civilised development and enduring class.