Towards my new progressivism – part one
In my earlier posting I promised to explore some ideas for a new progressivism growing from the rubble of the hegemonic individualism of the last thirty years. This turns out to be a lot more difficult to write than it seemed when I was thinking great thoughts out running in Saddleworth. Still, on the basis that this is a blog posting to stimulate debate rather then a meticulously argued thesis, here goes.
The individualist paradigm rests of a series of interconnected views, assumptions and methodologies. Politically, individualists see the promotion of personal freedom as both the means and ends of progress. Analytically, individualists see society as no more than the aggregation of individual preferences and actions. The content of those preferences is sufficiently explained in terms of each person maximising utility based on a perfect knowledge of their own best interests. Whilst this idea is best understood as a heuristic device (the ‘least bad’ basis for policy, perhaps) rather than an attempt to describe reality, it relies upon and reinforces the importance of conscious human calculation as the driver of behaviour; the invisible hand is powered by individual choices.
Social progressives are unwilling to leave progress to the aggregation of individual choices. The fulfilment of human potential requires more than freedom, it depends upon access to a culturally determined range of resources. Progressives are not satisfied with the individualists’ absolute notion of ‘freedom from’, wanting to balance against it the inherently negotiable idea of ‘freedom to’. ‘Freedom to’ is socially constructed and socially realised therefore the individual can only be fully understood in relation to society. Society acts upon the individual and has its own dynamics beyond the aggregation of individual preferences.
There is nothing new to this; it is political philosophy 1.01. But in recent years, as the critique of political and analytical individualism has grown, three important new arguments have been added to the progressive case. First, measures of self defined well-being at the aggregate level contradict the assumption that greater freedom leads to greater personal satisfaction. As Avner Offer shows in ‘The Challenge of Affluence’, and as research by Andrew Oswald and by Richard Layard has reinforced, greater personal freedom and affluence do not seem to be leading to more enjoyable lives. Also, greater personal freedom seems to be associated, if anything, with a higher incidence of pathologies ranging from obesity to violent crime.
Second, social science (in particular social psychology and behavioural economics) has convincingly demonstrated the systematically non-utility maximising nature of human preferences and actions. For example, human beings are bad at both calculating and acting upon what is – according to their own stated views – in their best long term interests. Quite apart from its impact on individuals this can have problematic social consequences, seen, for example in the inadequate pension savings rate in societies like the US and UK which most emphasising economic freedom.
Third, neuroscience has finally exploded the myth that human behaviour can be fully, or even adequately, seen as being primarily the result of conscious calculation. Most of what we do (arguably, all that we do, but this is a bigger philosophical question) is the result of unconscious responses to external stimuli. The mind does not police the boundary between the individual and the world outside, instead the individual is a nodal point in a web of unconscious stimulus and response. Indeed, from the perspective of neuroscience it is easier to argue there is no such thing as the individual (understood as the conscious, independent decision maker) than there is no such thing as society.
Based on a crude understanding of evolution and a superficial interpretation of human behaviour, individualists used to claim they were the hard headed realists while progressives were starry eyed idealists (all too ready to turn into authoritarians when their hopes of human perfection were thwarted). But we now know beyond question (as if there was ever any doubt) that human beings have socially constructed identities, that they rely on social interventions to provide the conditions to develop their potential and their scope for well-being, and that the choices we make are as much if not more dependent on the social context in which we find ourselves as any fixed individual preferences.
At the level of the individual, the new progressive agenda differs from a more traditional social democratic perspective in insisting on a more nuanced, ambitious and research-based idea of capacity and well-being. To be sure, freedom and fairness are likely to be important components of the objective conditions for, and subjective experience of, well-being. But the way we experience and express freedom, and the translation of objectively fair rules into a society in which people both feel equally valued and committed to reciprocity depend upon the development of individuals as social actors and the creation of the contexts which encourage individually fulfilling and socially benevolent preferences and actions.
This implies a series of connected aspects of a new progressive agenda.
A wider frame: New progressives believe it is useful for society to seek to define and pursue human development and well-being (whilst recognising the definitions will be contested). This is not simply about maximising the potential for free choices but about creating the context and capacities for wise choices.
A greater ambition: New progressives believe that through social action it is possible (and desirable) substantially to increase aggregate capacity and well-being. This goes beyond achieving higher levels of equality and material wealth to a qualitatively different level of individual and social functioning. Progressives argue that such a shift may be necessary if human beings are to manage key aspects of the modern world including globalisation, climate change and technological complexity.
The good individual in the good society: Progress for the individual relies not only on ‘freedom from’, nor even ‘freedom to’, but on the individual’s place in a society that nurtures, develops and continually reinforces the individual’s potential as a social being. Politics should be largely concerned with debating what kind of society this is but the evidence suggests it will have relatively low levels of social inequality.
No related posts.
Comments
8 Comments on Towards my new progressivism – part one
-
John on
Mon, 29th Dec 2008 10:49 pm
-
Avner on
Tue, 30th Dec 2008 4:24 pm
-
Ed Hart on
Tue, 30th Dec 2008 4:34 pm
-
Michael in UK on
Tue, 30th Dec 2008 5:50 pm
-
My new progressivism, part two; taking society seriously | Matthew Taylor's blog on
Tue, 30th Dec 2008 6:07 pm
-
This week’s essential reading December 27th through January 2nd on
Fri, 2nd Jan 2009 4:09 pm
-
matthewtaylor on
Fri, 2nd Jan 2009 5:16 pm
-
matthewtaylor on
Fri, 2nd Jan 2009 5:33 pm
Hello Matthew
That is a fair argument. However, I doubt what you call the “new progressives” are really new. Its very similar to what New Labour espoused in 1997 and though there is definitely a break from the democratic socialism of Foot, Callaghan and others it doesn’t suggest a break from the New Labour project.
Rugged individualism is a philosophy that has been out of vogue in the UK since the mid 90s. In the UK at least, the debate you are raging is already won. Practically everyone accepts the minimum wage, most want an NHS free at the point of delivery and few would begrudge the increases in the national pension.
What people care about is successful implementation and execution and the results have been sketchy. Your argument would carry more favour in the US where the debate is still raging but on this side of the pond, you may just be wasting pixels.
How we want our society to be is clearly the starting point. Now we have a consensus lets have a body of ideas about proper research, implementation, execution and the use of data (rather than anecdotes) to drive the change we need.
I welcome your words – but as i said the battle is largely won.
John
Dear Matthew,
Thought-provoking. As John wrote, the cognitive-bias perspective is mostly relevant to the argument with rational-choice/efficient-markets/inivisble-hand hegemony. It does not in itself tell us what the common good should be, and how to pursue it (though it does query the nostrums of the New Public Management).
You might just find the following of interest:
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/Avner_Offer_opinionpiece.pdf
Best wishes,
Happy New Year, Avner Offer
I do not believe that the arguement between individual “human rights” vs society’s “greater good” has been concluded.
If it has, where are the leaders who are prepared to draw the distinction between those who are living and working productively, and those who are not?
Change needs to be led, not discussed.
Great stuff Matthew, very thought-provoking, and I like the associations you are making with your earlier posts on cultural theory, which more and more seems to me to be a practical (that’s vital) way of framing perspectives. I am experimenting with using it in my own work, and it has changed the way I think about discussions with friends/colleagues.
Did you hear Zadie Smith’ s commisions as guest editor on the today prog on Monday?
[...] I offered a new progressive view of the individual. I argued for an explicit commitment to significant advances in human development and well-being, [...]
[...] Towards my new progressivism – part one | Matthew Taylor’s blog – Loving this series from Matthew Taylor. As a slightly left of centre libertarian, this makes perfect sense to me: "To be sure, freedom and fairness are likely to be important components of the objective conditions for, and subjective experience of, well-being. But the way we experience and express freedom, and the translation of objectively fair rules into a society in which people both feel equally valued and committed to reciprocity depend upon the development of individuals as social actors and the creation of the contexts which encourage individually fulfilling and socially benevolent preferences and actions." [...]
Thanks – last post in series just published. Do you think I should try to generate more debate next week, perhaps focusng on concrete examples of progressive practice?
Hi John
I agree that the battle has largely been won among those who think and talk about such matters. But the tacit assumptions of individualism still run deep at all levels of society. And no other coherent alternative has yet emerged. The great strength of the neo-liberal view of human nature and socety is that it is easy to understand and act upon
Happy new year
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
RSA Pamphlets
RSA Vision
RSA Animate
RSA Comment
- Twitter @RSAMatthew
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.