Soundings a journal of politics and culture |
We live in a tantalising world of beckoning opportunities. If we can only work on and invest in our own capabilities, and seize the moment when it comes, we can be part of the world of success. One problem for most of us, however, is that the idea of opportunity is closely linked to the concept of the competitive individual battling to secure a place in the future - where for many there will be more knocks than opportunities. In this issue of Soundings we look at different approaches to the future, and at what our concept of the future tells us about the nature of the present.
One critical part of the future is our children. The way we bring them up is an indication of how we feel about the future; and of course our attitudes to the young and ideas on how they should be educated reveal much about the present. So in this issue there are a number of articles about current attitudes to children, education and childcare.
Lawrence Grossberg argues that children are caught up in the crossfire of a battle between competing visions of the future. He sees an epochal cultural clash between those who no longer believe that progress is possible, because the future is unpredictable and we cannot influence it, and those who believe that what we do in the present can change the future for the better. As he argues, a belief in the unpredictability of the world provides massive sustenance for the right, since it undermines all arguments in favour of intervention, while at the same time encouraging a retreat to conservatism in the face of a risky outside world. In contrast, the left needs to see a way of getting from where we are now to a different future. Without such an understanding we are likely to feel depressed and powerless. Grossberg came to these conclusions in trying to think about why children in the United States are currently having such a bad time. He argues that a culture which has no sense of direction is likely to be in trouble when it comes to looking after and educating its children.
If we look at our attitudes to children in Britain, we can see something similar going on. Without a strong sense of how we want the future to be, the government tends to revert to a default position, thinking mainly about how children will fit into the economy - which is regarded as something we adapt to rather than intervene in. (Though it does, of course, spend quite a bit of time thinking about how to make us all behave ourselves.)
Sue Gerhardt’s article shows the contradictions between New Labour’s projection of itself as emotionally literate, and as understanding the needs of changing family patterns, and its actual policies towards the very young. As she argues, most policies are led by workforce considerations, and since babies don’t contribute to the economy, their needs tend to be low on the priority list. She points out that, since the government’s ‘entire trajectory is one of pushing independence and responsibility onto the wayward members of the national "family"’, it is difficult for them to accommodate a need for dependence. An absence of any vision beyond adapting to the unpredictable vagaries of the economy means that the best we can all do is strive to make ourselves and our children fit in with its changing demands.
Lisa Harker makes similar points in her review of government policies on childcare, though she argues that there is a detectable shift taking place towards greater recognition of the needs of children, as opposed to those of the labour market. However she acknowledges that the battle for recognition of children’s needs is a tough one.
Lynda Dyson and I had an interesting time talking to three teenage girls studying at a North London comprehensive school. We wanted to find out what their thoughts were on the opportunities the future holds. An extract from this conversation is included in this issue, and we also wrote a short article to go with it, partly prompted by the discussion. Our main argument is that young people experience massive pressure in the highly competitive and market-orientated environment in which they grow up. They have to continually work on themselves to produce themselves as achieving individuals able to compete for jobs and success. In this sense they are truly Blair’s children, with all the contradictions that that implies.
Rowan Williams offers a welcome alternative approach to childhood. He argues that we need to think about what kind of adults we are and wish our children to become; reflecting on this will give better guidance on how to bring up our children. As he argues, rhetoric about responsibility and community would have more meaning coming from an adult society which was itself responsible and nurturing. His vision is one of humanity and hope based on Christian principles, which of course raises the question of how to sustain such faith in the future on the secular left.
Other articles in this issue also deal with the future. Martin McIvor takes up the debate about the future of New Labour, highlighting the tensions between their dual strategy of embracing the market while proclaiming support for social democracy. Geoff Andrews offers an altogether more enticing prospect, in his advocacy of convivial politics and slow food. James Robertson puts forward some interesting proposals for changing the rules of the money system, while David Purdy argues that it is time for capitalism to call a halt to its reckless pursuit of growth, in the interests of future generations. Finally Jo Littler talks to Clive Bennett and Kate Soper about the radical potential of the politics of ethical consumption. We publish all these in the hope that they may offer some answers to the questions raised at the beginning by Lawrence Grossberg.
SD
To join in the discussion send in your comments to soundings@lwbooks.co.uk
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |