common people are neither pilloried nor bribed. As soon as they show evidence of political power they are embraced . . . . The willingness to use the weapon of seduction will be the last ditch in the defensive position of the British rentier class.”[1]
We know how in England titles are so prized that they have been purchased by wealthy men contributing money to political party funds. Possibly a considerable part of Britain’s control of her dominions and colonies is secured by playing upon the social ambitions of leading men and women. This process is one of the “invisible bonds of empire.” Even among Americans who are supposed to be relatively free from such snobbery, wives and daughters of wealthy families are usually much flattered if they can be presented at the British royal court. It is safe to say that a considerable number of those Americans who are either rich or university graduates would feel gratified if they were asked to dine or have tea with an English lord or knight. The British ruling classes are aware of the situation and use this flattery of prestige, this creation and manipulation of superiority and inferiority complexes, to influence American attitudes toward international affairs. The person who is flattered is apt to believe what the flatterer in high position says, to imitate him in one way or another, to look favorably upon what the flatterer suggests, whether it be using influence to get something accomplished, withholding approval or action, or what not. The same thing is done in India.
Herein lies the political importance of khadi. In all countries for ages the cut and kind of clothing worn by men or women has denoted their social and economic status. The British insistence upon a special formal dress for evening dinner among people who make any pretense to social
14
- ↑ What Happened in 1931 by Lord Passfield—The Political Quarterly, London, Jan.-Mar., 1932.
