THE GRAND REFUSAL: CAVAFY AND THE REFERENDUM

 

In the lead up to the Australian referendum on the Aboriginal Voice to Parliament, I have been re-reading Cavafy, whosepoem “Che Fece … Il Gran Rifiuto,” sometimes translated in English as “The Big Decision,” penned in 1899, seems eerily prescient:

“For some people the day comes

when they have to declare the great Yes

or the great No. It’s clear at once who has the Yes

ready within him; and saying it,

 

he goes from honour to honour, strong in his conviction.

He who refuses does not repent. Asked again,

he’d still say no. Yet that no—the right no—

drags him down all his life.”

 

Cavafy does not identify the decision that is to be taken, nor does he maintain that his rumination is of universal application. Instead, he speaks to the margins when toying with the ambiguity that is inherent in the decision-making process. The Sermon in the Mount as recorded by Matthew the Evangelist has Jesus enjoin us: “But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your ‘No’ be ‘No.’ Whatever is more than these is of the evil one,” and it appears that it is the stark dichotomy and the different fates that can unwind depending upon which side of the binary one falls, that so absorbs him.

 

An obvious reading of the text is that it is easy for one to say (or vote) Yes when one is strong in their convictions. One who has already made up their mind, who is conscious of the fact that agreeing publicly with the mores and dictates of society will bring advantage, honour or approbation does not require too much of an effort, in order to espouse the prescribed opinion. This is especially so, given the overall positive connotations attached to saying ‘Yes’ as opposed to the negative ones associated with refusing to do so. Here, it can be argued, the word “strong” is used in irony. Cavafy thus maybe inviting us to consider just how “strong” are the convictions of someone to whom everything is absolute and resolved, without requiring the agony of introspection, analysis, doubt and consideration, whose opinions are neither questioned nor held up to scrutiny or tested but instead are rewarded, not on their merits, but simply because they are positive ones.

 

The Naysayers on the other hand, seem to be, according to Cavafy, the mirror image of the Yes voters. They remain as the poet says, eternally unrepentant. No matter how many times they are asked, they are just as “strong” in their convictions as the Yeasayers and it is implied that no amount of debate or discussion will change their minds. Their position is so entrenched that it is no longer an intellectual or moral position but rather, constitutes an entire identity within itself, creating an unbridgeable chasm between Yes and No.

 

That identity is further augmented by its ancillary attributes. Whereas honours and progress are an aspect of the Yes declarants, a sense of martyrdom is attached to those declaring No. According to the poet, their decision will afflict them for the rest of their life, presumably retarding their progress and creating obstacles to their progression, yet as the poet says, if given the chance, they would do it again anyway. Is the poet juxtaposing the fixed and immutable nature of their stance with the “strong” convictions of the Yes declarants, or is he paralleling it with and showing it to be of the same nature? And do we take the poet’s word for it when he claims that voting/declaring/saying No will engender victimhood? Or is the “No” made  consciously in pursuit of such marginality and identity, in which being marginalised within that paradigm is equivalent to being afforded honour, albeit of a different nature?

 

Cavafy is possibly suggesting then, that no decision is ever Manichaean in nature and there exist a multiplicity of considerations, conscious and not, that inform how such decisions are made. This is evident in his nuanced employment of the term “right” to qualify the “No.” There are evidently right No’s and wrong No’s and the poet is deliberately ambiguous as to how these are defined. Is a “right” No one which is declared on principle, via a logical thought process and careful consideration, or is the “right” No the one that will ensure that the “No” voter is marginalised, victimised and pilloried, at least in their own mind, engendering an already constructed sense identity or tribe? The absolutes of right and wrong under Cavafy’s careful gaze become as compromised as those of Yes and No. Everything, it appears, depends on the motivation of the decision-maker.

 

The title of Cavafy’s poem is paraphrased from Dante’s Inferno. “Il Gran Rifiuto,” - The Great Refusal being the error attributed by Dante to one of the souls found trapped aimlessly at the Vestibule of Hell. “After I had identified a few,” Dante writes, “I saw and recognized the shade of him who made, through cowardice, the great refusal.” It is believed by scholars that the verse may refer to Pope Celestine V who laid down his papacy on the grounds of age. It appears that Dante was influenced by theologian Thomas Aquinas’ concept of recusatio tensionis, the unworthy refusal of a task that is within one’s natural powers, when condemning Celestine.

 

And it is this liminal space between Yes and No, the refusal to make any decision or take any stance at all, that seems to escape the attention of most readers of Cavafy’s poem. For while we fixate our attention on the dichotomy of those saying Yes or No, we neglect to comprehend that the real tragedy lies not between the two absolutes which by and large are predictable and reflect each other, but rather with those who resile from making a decision whatsoever, out of indifference, ignorance, or as Cavafy ostensibly implies, cowardice. It is their obstinacy that Cavafy appears to condemn, their refusal to engage with the decision-making process that is far more heinous than the position that they might come to espouse. Such persons in ancient Athens, were known as ἱδιῶται, (idiotes), private persons who did not wish to engage in civic participation. In New Testament Greek, the term is used to denote an unskilled outsider and it is from this word that the modern English word “idiot” is derived. It is these people, the selfish and timid ones that Cavafy derides.

 

Or does he? Beyond the dichotomy of saying Yes and No, is Cavafy introducing a further dichotomy, one between decision and indecision? Can the decision not to make a decision, to walk away from a debate ever be a “right” one, or does this entail a form of purgatory where expiation is required? As we approach the Referendum on the Aboriginal Voice to Parliament, one in which we are called upon to become Yeasayers and Naysayers, and in which resiling from such a decision is punishable at law, let us reflect upon the “strength” and “righteousness” of our convictions, lest these “drag [us] down, all [our] lives.”

DEAN KALIMNIOU

kalymnios@hotmail.com

First published in NKEE on Saturday 7 October 2023