Skip to main content

Where did it all go wrong?


Where did it all go wrong? How could we have ended up in this economic mess? My answer to this question is that it went wrong because we stopped investing in society. We stopped thinking social. When I say 'we' I am being kind. There were many of us who continued to think that society needed attention and investment. We believed and still believe that society is more than the sum of its parts; society is more than an aggregate of self-interested people. So how and when did we forget that?

Society used to be the objective of politics; to create a better society, a more caring society, a more tolerant society, a fairer society, a more 'equal' society and, yes, even a society that fostered opportunity.  Back in the 1960s we still talked about society. We argued more about how to improve it rather than whether it had a role. By the end of the 1970s 'society' was under threat but still kicking back; by the end of the 1980s it was very sick and politically speaking if not in reality it was dying. Now the words 'social' and 'society' appear to be all but banished from the political lexicon.

Mrs Thatcher notoriously stated that there was no such thing as society. It is often said that her remark in 1987 was taken out of context. So let's see it in context:

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

What this context tells us is that Mrs Thatcher's view of 'society' was that it was simply an aggregate of individuals; sociology died because there was nothing to study other than the individual behaviour.  More significant than casting society aside is this: 'people must look after themselves'. 
In this statement in 1987 we have the origins of our problem today because it heralded a fundamental shift in political and economic objective. The transfer of public wealth to private hands and public debt to private household debt; but also a fundamental shift in responsibility from public to private and a devil take the hindmost approach. The pursuit of self-interest would somehow benefit all because it would be a 'mutual self-interest.' Mutual self interest replaced society. The breaks on bank lending were removed, people could now borrow to buy houses, and very often former social housing. The social housing stock declined; house prices increased; borrowing to live now was an inevitably flawed strategy and all it required was the collapse of the irresponsible banks that were fuelling it. 
But let's turn Mrs Thatcher on its head (or her head): If you invest in society by providing decent housing, decent health and decent education and training then people (individuals and families) will be more able to 'look after themselves'. Nor is what Mrs Thatcher said true. It was philosophically flawed. When she said 'people MUST look to themselves FIRST', this is clear nonsense. There is no reason why they must and certainly no reason why they would always be able to.  This is why the coalition government's approach to welfare is unethical. It seeks to drive people back to work by reducing benefits whilst providing no means for this to happen in reality. So the poor bear the greater burden of austerity. 
To say to a homeless family 'you must look to yourself first' hardly helps. There may be a variety of reasons why they are homeless: the consequences of unemployment for example. A good social strategy would be one that prevented homelessness by addressing its causes. Not surprisingly, homelessness went up during Mrs Thatcher's revolution and some of us can remember the growth of 'cardboard' cities with more and more people sleeping rough and families in bed and breakfast. 
The solutions are not easy; the crisis is profound. But we need to start rebuilding society. We need increased social investment in housing, health and education. We need to see economic activity as part of social activity. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As