|
Ben Little
© Ben Little 2007
The language of the left no longer works in the UK: a politically conscious generation, fundamentally sympathetic to the causes of social and economic justice, has emerged from the post-Thatcher, neo-liberal settlement sceptical of critiques of capitalism and alienated by the discourse of class. To many of us who first saw a change of governing party in 1997, class in any meaningful social sense is something that feels like an anxiety imposed upon us by an older, out-of-date politics that may have made sense to our parents, but is out of touch with the more fluid (and admittedly consumerist) constructions of identity which we inhabit quite comfortably.
It is not exclusively in social terms that this applies; class as a measure of economic wealth does not seem to fit this new mindset either. Even though it is true, the idea that your future financial situation is largely determined by that of your parents is anathema to the outlook of the children of the 1980s and 1990s. Class identity, and building a politics around it, will not work. There are few 'natural' political allegiances any more. The detrimental effect on voter engagement of a two-party system was pointed out by the Power Inquiry in 2005, yet this was probably, of all the concerns raised in its report (Power to The People), the one that received least media attention (see http://www.makeitanissue.org.uk). In many respects, this white elephant of political debate can be extended from disillusionment with Labour vs. Conservative to our general conception of the political spectrum. Diversity of opinion, identity and economic arrangements in the lives of twenty-first century Britons ensures that the homogenising nature of political parties, or even stated political positions in relation to the traditional discourse of left and right, becomes anachronistic.
With this, a whole range of concepts and organisational stances need to be jettisoned if any meaningful political movement based around social and economic justice is going to survive. This means a rejection not simply of the vocabulary, but of the thinking that produces it. Take the notion of 'solidarity': in the absence of a coherent class identity, asking a fast-food delivery person from Enfield to consider themselves 'the same' as a seasonal agricultural worker in Cornwall, let alone a factory worker in the Philippines, is farfetched. This does not preclude similar political interests, but the idea that people will 'stand together as one' on issues that affect one or the other will become unrealistic. This does not mean that one section of society, demographic or political grouping will not support another, just that it will be made on other terms. On one level, the idea of denying your differences to symbolically 'be the same' as another person or group of persons can become a noble form of self-sacrifice and basis for political action; but at another level it exposes an inherent contradiction when you are asked to make a class based allegiance to another group and your sense of self operates not through your employment but through your leisure activities and purchasing choices. For example, to stand up and say 'we are all Darfuris now' would be almost as ridiculous as the idea of JFK announcing he was a doughnut in front of gathered crowds in Berlin.1 What might be intended as an ethical statement appears insincere on closer inspection, and, worse, patronises the experiences of those suffering displacement, daily violence, murder and rape.
Politics is always personal and the personal is rarely constructed with the coherence of political dogma. Affiliations to political parties, trade unions and campaign groups as political entities, or even to a declaration of left or right politics, now generates unease. Fundamentally, it equates to a diminution of the individual identity though connection to a wider project which pre-positions you in relation to a range of issues. Politics becomes acceptable only in terms of specific solvable problems rather than declared political values. It must respond to ethical issues not claim them: people want to be informed, not preached at. Solutions will always be preferred within capitalist economic structures, as neo-liberal economic theory has successfully bestowed upon itself the status of a science in the popular conception. The relative prioritisation between inflation and employment is not so much political as an academic debate between free-marketeers and Keynesians. If all this sounds distinctly depressing, or even a capitulation to the right-wing forces that produced this kind of relation to politics, it should not be.
The generation starting to enter its 30s has already been radicalised in a wholly different way, but it lacks focus. This is in part created by the need to present political materials in general ethical terms to avoid alienating audiences, and in part a function of the sources of information themselves. This is not a generation who will sit and read Althusser and Gramsci or Friedman and Hayek. The methods of engagement are different. The emergence of the feature documentary has created strong views on a range of issues: from Bowling for Columbine's exposé of US gun policy to Super Size Me's critique of fast-food to The Yes Men's wonderfully camp attack on the WTO and labour exploitation, these relatively independent films bring about political awareness through the logic of social consumption.
In his contribution to the Soundings left futures debate, Grahame Thompson suggests this is the penetration of neo-liberal thought into the realm of the left: 'One of neo-liberalism's most effective moves has been to unite the left's commitment to "participation" with the right's commitment to "responsibility" (as now is the case with the celebration of the "active citizen", for instance)' (http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/soundings/debates/left_futures8.html). Yet if such a shift is the product of a right-wing programme, they will not be able to control the results. Hundreds of thousands took to the streets in protest of the Iraq war, lobbied the G8 for debt relief or showed their support on various issues such as bullying, racism in football, AIDs, breast cancer and many more in token ways. But smaller events indicate a general willingness to participate in the intellectual debates on the future of society. From arts events such as Act for Darfur to a variety of New Left style pub debates, all organised to an extent through Facebook and MySpace, the key thing is leaving the politicking out even when the issues are explicitly political. These sorts of popular single-issue campaigns and movements are the new politics, and through them the left can achieve most of their traditional aims.
Take the example of climate change. Despite a general sense of malaise, impotence and pessimism around the issue, there is increasing popular support for governmental action. The rise of this issue is impacting seriously on political parties to the extent that all have to have a policy relating to it. At some stage in the next decade, a political party will win power with their solution to carbon emissions occupying a central place in their election manifesto. Yet what happens if you have a government committed to tackling climate change seriously? Current doctrine sees varying taxation as the main governmental mechanism for influencing patterns of consumption. From my very basic understanding of macro-economic theory, if the impact of carbon emissions is to be reflected in the taxation system and be effective, it cannot just move the burden of taxation from low carbon to high carbon goods and services as, for a large portion of the highest polluters (i.e. the well off), the overall burden of taxation would remain the same. Neither can we have a system of tax and spend that produces inflation, nor a tax and save policy that inhibits economic growth. The only effective answer is a model of carbon-based taxation that acts to redistribute wealth.2
Most 'worthy causes' offer similar alliances between single issues and a wider goal of social and economic justice, and it is through these issues, one at a time, that such a long-term aim can be achieved. Instead of looking for a new hegemony orientated to the left within contemporary politics, being committed to social justice can mean a committed exploration of specific issues, galvanising support and raising awareness through a variety of different methods and formulating realistic and practical solutions to problems. This is not an argument against using the electoral system to implement change, but if parliamentary politicians are content to keep our democracy an accountable technocracy, we should hold them to account on the issues that matter.
Notes
1. Stop the War Coalition's unfortunate banners reading 'We are all Hizbullah now' was perhaps the most offensive example of this. Whatever your take on the Israel/Hizbullah war, it is very unlikely anyone at that march would genuinely want to be cowering in makeshift bunkers while Israeli bombs pounded down all around them. JFK did not actually declare himself a doughnut, 'Ich bin ein Berliner' is the correct German for 'I am a Berliner', but the point stands!
2. The most promising system may be that currently being developed by the RSA around personal carbon allowances. See http://www.rsacarbonlimited.org/
Subscribe to Soundings a journal of politics and culture
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
