It was more than slightly intimidating earlier this week to host an event with David Harvey, one of the world’s leading Marxist thinkers. Nevertheless listening to the great man and reading his book I was reminded of why – although there are many powerful aspects of Marxist analysis – I have never been attracted by the whole world view.
It comes down to human motivation: In essence Marxists tend to blame what they see as the most regrettable aspects of human behaviour on the capitalist system. So, for Harvey, capitalism relies upon and inculcates blind greed among the capitalist class (exhibited, for example, by the efforts made by the very rich to avoid their tax obligations) while fostering a combination of mob consumerism and bovine acquiescence among most of the rest of us. Conversely, Harvey’s happy, enlightened post capitalist society seems to rely upon the emergence or a much more benign human psychology. Indeed Harvey is explicit about the importance to his case of a belief in the perfectibility of the human spirit – it is why he abhors the depredations of capitalism and why he believes in a radical alternative.
In contrast, I believe human motivation is both more constant, in that the same features and vulnerabilities express themselves – albeit in different forms – whatever the social context, and more complex in that – with Freud – I see inherent tensions playing out in the human psyche.
Crudely superimposing very basic elements of cultural theory and the Freudian account of the personality, I suggest we have three core drives: the pursuit of pleasure (roughly cognate with id, freedom, individualism), the pursuit of power (roughly cognate with ego, progress, hierarchism); the fulfilment of duty (roughly cognate with super-ego, universalism, solidarity).
While I am only too ready to believe that consumer capitalism encourages an idea of pleasure which is both insatiable and narrowly materialistic and that it therefore tilts the balance of human nature in a particular, problematic, direction, I neither think the inherent conflict between our core motivations is a characteristic of capitalism alone nor that this conflict will ever be fully transcended.
This takes me beyond a fairly well-rehearsed and probably simplistic critique of the Marxist account of human nature to the debate in the RSA about the set of ideas we call the Power to Create; ideas which might ultimately frame the major part of our work.
A concern in our internal discussions (soon we aim to open that discussion much wider) has been that the focus on creativity can seem individualistic and ethically empty. This is why we stress inclusion (releasing the creativity in everyone) and responsibility (creativity for the common good) alongside creativity per se.
Going back to my triptych of human impulses, creativity can be seen to reflect two impulses – the pursuit of pleasure and power – but not the third – duty and responsibility. For example, does a focus on creating new things imply complacency about environmental sustainability or is it incompatible with the idea that human beings should prize a capacity for stoicism, quiet reflection and humility?
There are two responses to this concern: First, creativity can certainly be applied to questions of ethics and duty (this is the inspiration for much social enterprise); second, creativity can be about how we achieve a higher trade off point in the eternal tensions between our desire for the good life, for achievement and status, and to be virtuous. Creativity can thus be linked to Robert Kegan’s idea of self authorship as the highest stage of human development.
It may indeed be the ideology of consumerism that leads us sometime to conflate the idea of enhanced human agency with a narrow idea of self interest and personal ambition. Yet far from greater self mastery (a belief that we can create the future we choose) being seen as a way for the individual to free themselves from their natural and social context, the ideal should be that it leads to a deeper awareness of our essentially social nature our relationship with the natural environment and to more fulfilling and benign ways of managing the inherent tensions between our different human needs.
In a brilliant RSA lecture earlier this week, criminologist Shadd Maruna offers reasons why the idea of rehabilitation has gone in and out of fashion over the decades. He suggests, for example, that the sheer cost of incarceration makes alternatives to custody more attractive in times of austerity. But the Professor also makes a deeper philosophical point about evidence, values and public policy choices.
If the focus for policy evaluation – ‘what works’ as the phrase has it – is simply immediate crime reduction then the only proven intervention is large scale incarceration. This approach doesn’t try to change offenders – except by the blunt tool of deterrence – it just keeps them off the street for as long as possible. In a narrow cause and effect calculus (what Maruna refers to as the ‘Newtonian’ world view) prison works.
The case for rehabilitation relies on extending the argument in two directions. First, there needs to be a wider focus on social impacts of the criminal justice system and the underlying causes of crime: Maruna quotes evidence of the impact on families, poverty and inequality of high levels of incarceration among particular social groups. However, while this evidence is powerful it is by its nature less definitively causal.
Second, the case for rehabilitation has an essential normative dimension. Maruna quotes Roger Smith thus:
‘Unlike punishment which mobilises our sense of virtue and sets us apart from the transgressor, forgiveness arouses in us and depends upon, a sense of shared weakness. We are moved to forgive out of our own need to be forgiven for what we have done in the past and may do in the future. Forgiveness, unlike punishment, moreover depends upon a life of common values and concerns’
Both the wider focus on effects and the normative underpinning point to rehabilitation as a whole systems approach. If we expect rehabilitation to work merely as an instrumental device tacked on to a mechanistic system suffused with punitive values we are doomed to fail. Gratifyingly for the RSA, Maruna closes his talk by quoting from a forthcoming report on our excellent Transitions project :
‘Rehabilitation is something all of us want to see more of but it eludes us; it is a social benefit that requires a social response.’
Looking at public service reform more generally this analysis may go some way toward explaining the Hawthorne effect*. This describes the depressing but reliably predictable phenomenon by which closely evaluated social innovations undertaken by pioneers succeed but the same practice fails when replicated by others. While the pioneers are inspired by a reforming zeal and a profound critique of the status quo the replicators tend to see the reform as merely as a means to an end. The values and motivation that helped the innovation succeed as an experiment are absent when the idea is ‘rolled out’ across a rule bound ‘Newtonian’ bureaucracy.
The well-meaning letter written earlier this week to the Guardian by Labour reformers failed to get much purchase beyond being another story about the travails of Ed Miliband. The letter calls for
‘ Accountability of all powerful institutions…..Devolution of state institutions…. where possible, directly to the people. Co-production of public services by workers, users and citizens, to make them more responsive and efficient…Empowerment of everybody, so they are equipped with the resources (time, money, support) to enable them to play a full role as active citizens’.
The problem isn’t just the jargon. As critics have pointed out, much of this stuff seems pretty irrelevant to the priorities of most working class voters; in relation to values, the list is reminiscent of Oscar Wilde’s comment that ‘the trouble with socialism is that it takes too many evenings’ – the implication is that the ideal society is one in which we all spend a lot of our time designing, running and holding to account our own public services.
As my colleagues Anthony Painter and Travis Wentworth argue, the RSA’s idea of ‘The Power to Create’ chimes with the case for the local and for devolving of power to individuals and communities. But – echoing the argument for rehabilitation – the Guardian letter writers’ case needs widening and deepening if it is to have a chance of success.
On the one hand, the nature of the problem has to be clarified. The point being that if one steps back more than a couple of paces from the narrow self-serving claims made by Government departments, it is clear that in more and more cases, traditional top down, central policy making and implementation simply doesn’t work, not because of the failings of politicians nor even the specific design of policy but because of the nature of the modern world. (By the way, among the many fallacies of central Government is the idea of rolling out best practice referred to above). If we care about sustained social progress – rather than narrow, short term, policy effects- we have no choice but to think very differently about power and policy.
On the other hand, the normative case for citizen engagement is not just about service design or public sector accountability, much less a life of committee meetings, but a prizing of human autonomy, responsibility, collaboration and creativity; the good life well lived. Being able to create the lives we want and to contribute to developing a society in which such individual fulfilment is realistic is not a means to a progressive future; it is that future.
The principles implied by the Guardian letter ultimately rest on a Damascene conversion from the tools and logic of central control and a re-orientation of progressive goals away from metrical equality to a richer account of the good life in the good society. As such this platform could attract people from different parts of the existing faded political spectrum. It is journey I expect to be travelled by future political leaders, but not I fear any time soon.
*Not to be confused with the Hawthorns effect which involves paying £35 to join twenty five thousand other people on a Saturday afternoon in a collective process of turning belief and hope into disillusionment and anguish.
There is an argument I have made to progressives for many years and which I have since heard made more eloquently by Roberto Unger:greater equality should not be the end of progressive politics although it is almost certainly an important means. As Unger argues, the right’s focus on market based freedom and the left’s on social justice underwritten by the state fails to engage with what is both the ultimate goal of progress and the aspiration of people themselves – to live full and fulfilling lives.
The left might wish it was otherwise but not only are most people not particularly animated by the idea of social equality per se but the idea that people have of justice tends to be more about what political philosophers call procedural justice (fair application of rules, the balance of rights and entitlements) than substantive social justice. When pollsters ask people what is unfair in society they are as likely to mention welfare cheats and immigrants as the gap between rich and poor.
However, there is also a problem with identifying the goal of progress as lives that are ‘full and fulfilling’, or some other idealist description. It is hard to define the good life substantively. If we start with what people say matters right now we end up with a set of goals which seem rather prosaic and with only a tenuous link between individual aspirations and the requirements for a successful society. Yet if progressives claim that the good life is to be found in a certain set of universal attributes they open themselves to the claim of arbitrariness and arrogance and also seeming to be advocates of the dangerous idea that it is the business of social planners to help people create meaning in people’s lives.
Might there be an alternative end goal for progressivism? I would like to suggest connectedness or, at the risk of falling into jargon, ‘inclusive connectedness’. By the latter I mean being connected empathically and substantively to people from all parts of the society in which we live.
As Aristotle argued, being connected richly to other people is a vital element of living a good life. As social beings, the quality of our connections can be seen to be a direct correlate of the quality and value of our lives. Whilst the most reliable path to individual contentment may lie in a retreat from the social sphere into a world of contemplation, human fulfilment is an interpersonal phenomenon involving the effects we have on others.
More instrumentally, connectedness expands our horizons and opportunities can make us feel more valued and help us be more resilient to adversity. Being inclusively connected is not just a matter of personal preference or social co-incidence; prizing connectedness calls on us to be responsible for making and maintaining those connections beyond our own social tribe (something which requires us to transcend our evolved instincts).
Prizing connectedness also leads us to explore and value those attributes of society which give rise to connectedness; the balance of shared values with tolerance of difference, of freedom with social inclusion, of structure and tradition with spontaneity and experimentation.
The idea of inclusive connectedness as the goal of progressive politics gives rise to two big questions. The first involves understanding more deeply than we already do – from the work of Robert Putnam and many others – the relationship between connectedness and other aspects of the good life well lived. The RSA has explored aspects of this through our Connected Communities and Social Mirror projects. I spent a fascinating two hours a few days ago discussing a Participle innovation called Backr which is, so it seems, successfully exploring the importance of connectedness to gaining, and progressing in, employment.
The second set of issues concern the barriers to inclusive connectedness. I am excited to be chairing the Social Integration Commission which is looking at the degree of connectedness in British society, identifying the most glaring dimensions of disconnectedness and exploring how they might be overcome. It is early days for the Commission but already some fascinating, and sometimes counter-intuitive, findings are starting to emerge. For example, it turns out that even though people choose to live in a diverse area it doesn’t mean they choose diverse forms of connectedness.
Economic equality as the goal of progressivism offers clarity, measurability and a focus on the collective good. Aiming for a world of full and fulfilling lives offers texture, humanism and speaks to our personal ambitions. Might the goal of inclusive connectedness combine both?
The daily manoeuvring we are already seeing ahead of next year’s General Election can seem rather pointless. What has really changed in the polls in the last two years? Aren’t we continuing to meander towards another hung Parliament with the only unanswered question - which is to be the biggest Party – being ultimately resolved by a few thousand votes in a short list of marginal seats? Probably: but more in hope than expectation I’ll offer a way for things to become more interesting.
General Elections tend to be fought on three primary terrains: values, competence and future. Arguments about record and specific policies matter less for themselves than the degree to which they symbolise and reinforce these themes.
Labour is ahead on values, its traditional strong point; the Party scores relatively well on measures such as ‘speaks up for ordinary people’. The Conservative response is a sometimes uneasy mixture of appeal to people’s grievances about immigrants and those on benefits plus a quieter insistence that the Party continues to care about social mobility and poverty. Labour has tried to neutralise the first set of issues by sounding tough on claimants and immigration while choosing issues such as the bedroom tax to assert a value choice between the two largest Parties. The Lib Dems’ favoured position is to share Labour’s critique of ‘uncaring’ Conservatives but also to claim to be free of the less popular baggage of the labour movement.
The Conservatives are ahead on competence. They will be disappointed that the economic pick-up does not yet seem to have turned this advantage into a deal-clincher with the electorate. Sooner or later the Tories will launch a huge attack on the ‘riskiness’ of a Miliband Government’. They will be hoping this has an effect as powerful as the 1991/2 attack on Neil Kinnock (they may even be tempted to update the famous ‘L’ plate poster).
Labour has being trying to improve its competence rating. Thus there have been pledges on spending and borrowing and steps to improve the quality of Labour’s front bench. One of the reasons Nick Clegg entered Government was to establish the Lib Dems as a serious Party of Government. So far this hasn’t worked out well in terms of popularity but I suspect Clegg and his team will be in a stronger position come election time, albeit having to deal with insistent questions about who their favoured post-election partner would be.
While on values or competence we are dealing with fairly predictable game plans, when it comes to ‘future’ we are still largely in the dark. The future pitch is not just, or even mainly, about promises or aspirations. To win ‘future’ a party has to predict tomorrow in a credible way which lodges the idea that only that party understands and is prepared for that future.
The lack of future narrative may partly betray the limited time horizons and ambitions of the parties but it is also a reflection of the tough period we have been living through. Until recently any attempt to mobilise a positive future vision would have been seen as irrelevant, complacent or both. But that is changing. ‘Future’ is now up for grabs, and unlike values and competence it is far from clear who will wrestle control.
Much though it interests me, it’s not my job as RSA CEO to speculate on political strategy or election outcomes. However, my analysis does offer an opportunity to wider civic society. Whilst there is little most of us can usefully do on values and competence other than reinforce various existing positions, when it comes to ‘future’ there is room for creativity, agenda-setting and new alliances.
To repeat, future is not just about aspirations. More interesting are scenarios; what do we think are the likely major trends that will shape the next ten years? And can we press the parties to start showing us they understand these trends, are prepared for them, and how they would seek to shape them? In short, which party seems to ‘get the future’ most convincingly.
For example, I have been writing quite a lot (here and here) about the trends making central Government less effective and blunting the tools of traditional policy making. Who has the best plan to deal with the decline of the centre? Population ageing is another key trend. We talk about the specifics of health and social care and universal benefits but what about the deeper demographic trend towards a society where there are many more older people, some more younger people and fewer in-between? What kind of society will and should this be? As long as a different hollowing out – of the middle of the labour market – continues tinkering with minimum wages and tax credits it is not likely to make any significant difference. Is this something we simply live with or is any party willing credibly to commit to restructure the labour market?
The widespread assumption a few decades ago that globalisation would lead to a homogenisation of domestic economic and social policy has been largely confounded. There are significant differences between countries and different routes to success and to ruin.
Let’s hope that, amidst the attacks and retail policy offers, the next few months also sees the emergence of something that resembles a debate about alternative strategies for Britain (assuming, that is, there still is a Britain). Even better would be if this was a debate (unlike 99% of party politics) where the parties might in some areas agree to differ and let voters make an informed choice from the futures on offer. If the RSA could play a part in hosting such a debate I’m sure we’d be up for it.
The think tank, ippr, has an unconditional place in my heart matched only by West Bromwich Albion and the RSA so I have been trying to work out why the Institute’s recent pamphlet ‘Many to many – how the relational state will transform public services’ didn’t grab me in the way its reports usually do.
The report (which follows two others in similar vein) is in essence an appeal to the centre left to abandon its centralist assumptions and adopt a set of ideas about devolved, joined up, empowering public services; ideas which have in truth been around for decades. The spur is not so much state failure – indeed, the report is at pains to list policies the state has successfully implemented – but that modern policy challenges – like managing chronic health conditions or reducing long term unemployment – are ‘complex’ requiring the state to use its power in different ways.
Thus the report seeks to adapt the social democratic political economy of the state. But what if the starting point for that political economy is wrong? Might that wrong starting point help to explain why ideas like the relational state are so often talked about on the left but so rarely amount to anything much when Labour runs central or local government?
The key issue concerns the location of power and definition of value. In the conventional social democratic model – implicit in this report – power resides in the state and value in the capacity of the state to achieve its political and policy objectives. The source and nature of these policy objectives is assumed to be relatively unproblematic, being seen as an expression of a Government’s democratic mandate and progressive purpose.
However, an alternative model sees power residing in society and the evidence of Government’s value lying not in its capacity to achieve its goals but in the degree to which it is able to to mobilise social power towards aims to which citizens explicitly aspire. A successful Government is not merely one that has implemented is objectives (indeed the relationship between policy implementation and social capacity may be inverse) but one which has increased the capacity of society to improve itself.
In my annual lecture, for example, I suggested ,firstly, that social power had three forms (the individualistic, solidaristic and hierarchical); secondly, that the most powerful societies, organisations and policies mobilised all three sources; and thirdly, that the UK is currently suffering from a deficit of solidaristic and hierarchical power. From this perspective the way the central state operates as a dysfunctional and mistrusted hierarchy is as likely to sap as enhance social power.
To look at a more specific dimension: levels of social trust and trust of institutions appears to be a better predictor of a nation’s future economic dynamism than levels of human capital (defined primarily in terms of education and skills). Yet the very way the state operates can undermine social trust. Bo Rothstein is not alone in arguing that welfare means-testing reduces trust by making state bureaucrats intrusive and often arbitrary judges of claimants, by encouraging claimants to game the system and also because claimants are seen to game by non-claimants. This is now a suppurating wound in the UK social body: we are simultaneously experiencing unprecedentedly high levels of sanctioning of benefit claimants and of public hostility to claimants.
In work on reintroducing the contributory principle to welfare, ippr has recognised this issue, but it also intrudes into public services. ‘Many to many’ explores how a more relational state might better encourage people to be active in managing their own health and social care needs but – as a carers’ representative pointed out at a recent RSA seminar – the needs testing of social care eligibility continues to provide an incentive for people to focus on their incapacity.
In a blog post I can only offer a highly truncated exposition of a bigger argument but to get to the core of it: if the goal is a state which has good relationships with citizens which in turn generates capacity for social progress there are several profound and inter-related problems:
The increasingly problematic idea of policy-driven change (as laid out in my last post).
The oppressive logic of bureaucratic working (identified by the ippr report but in rather technocratic terms)
The frequent lack of alignment between the interests of political decision makers (with their increasingly weak mandate) and the public good
There are no easy answers. Replacing a statist with a social political economy is only the starting point for a long iterative journey to an as yet only hazy reform agenda, an agenda which is likely in many ways to be more radical than anything currently on offer. My concern is that this report, like recent speeches from Ed Miliband and Jon Cruddas, doesn’t recognise the deep, endemic, structural failings of the modern state. Thus while the principles and reforms it proposes are largely sensible (albeit not that different from the aspirations espoused by Coalition ministers) the reasons they have proved so very hard to act upon is left largely unexamined.
This morning at an RSA seminar on demand management the inspirational chief executive of a genuinely reforming and innovative local authority shared her experience of spending sustained time looking at services from the point of view of citizens and front line workers. ‘We talk about troubled and chaotic families’ she said ‘but what about troubled and chaotic public services?’. It reminded me of something once said by Professor Stephen Coleman: ‘the problem of civic engagement is hard to reach groups, and there is no harder to reach group than politicians’.
The vehicle of state is not working; its engine unreliable, its steering awry. Most social democrats seem still to hope we can get away with replacing parts of the body work.