Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T00:21:14.298Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reflections on a Fiery Chariot

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Extract

In a recent review article [this Journal, VI (1974), 345–69] Professor Berrington helpfully corrects and refines the statistics contained in Lucille Iremonger's volume, The Fiery Chariot: A Study of British Prime Ministers and the Search for Love and suggests that there may well be something in the idea that prime ministers differ systematically in their psychological make-up from the rest of the population. It is clearly the case that they have been unfortunate in their choice of parents, who have been more apt to die when the putative PM is young than is generally the case. And one cannot sensibly, in the light of theoretical evidence cited by Berrington, object to his proposal that premature bereavement may establish in the child a condition or conditions of mind and a psychological disposition that may well be relieved, made tolerable or even cured by immersion in the life-style of a professional politician. However, there are a number of points worth making about Professor Berrington's endorsement, limited though it is, of Iremonger's thesis.

Type
Notes and Comments
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Although the possibility of alternative explanations of the same fact should be mentioned, i.e. that successful politicians (who are bereaved as children) may have responsibility thrust on them and this assumption of responsibility may eventually assume a political dimension. Again, it is quite possible that in cases where only a single parent dies the surviving parent might compe sate for the loss by providing a loving and malleable environment.

2 Berrington, p. 364.1 have slightly juxtaposed Professor Berrington’s actual words here but have not, I believe, changed the implication.

3 (a) See, for example, Inkeles, A., ‘Sociology and Psychology’ in Koch, S., ed., Psychology, A Study in Science (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 354Google Scholar, and for the attractive power of a political role for certain psychological types see Browning, R. and Jacob, H., ‘Power Motivation and Political Personality’, Public Opinion Quarterly, XXVIII (1964), pp. 7590CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Prewitt, K., Eulau, H. and Ziok, B., ‘Political Socialisation and Political Roles’. Public Opinion Quarterly, XXX (1966), pp. 569–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar, suggest that amongst their legislators ‘institutional considerations and pressures undoubtedly provide direction’. (b) A useful account of the process will be found in Elliott, P., The Sociology of the Professions (London: Macmillan, 1972), Chap. 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and an authoritative account of the interaction can be found in Kelsall, R., Poole, Anne and Kuhn, Annette, Graduates: The Sociology of an Elite (London: Methuen, 1972).Google Scholar