Time to be called on the Big State/Small State argument.
In today's Guardian Jonathan Freedland has an excellent piece about a new model of looking at how to improve the way society works. If focuses on the approach of Hilary Cottam, who has done some inspiring work as part of the World Bank, and for redeveloping schools and social services. Take a look at the article, its not too long but worth while.
Why? Because it talks about the state as servant. For much of my lifetime the debate has been shaped by a polarity between the Socialist Big State and the neo-Conservative Little State. With the former you get state control, state expenditure, the Big Nanny, politicial correctness and a whole managed society - not just a managed economy. The latter is homeless on the streets, minimum health care, tuition fees and care not in the community but left to the community, be that food banks or volunteering. The effect of BOTH is indifference at a personal level.
I say that because under socialist Big State the directive is that the State has the responsibility and the power to take care of everyone, from cradle to grave. Volunteers really get in the way, are untrained, amateur and uncontrolled with their own agendas. Individuals should abide by the collective. Nanny knows best.
The neo-conservative alternative has been to assert individual responsibility, that the poor should make an effort, pull their socks up, get on their bike. Social services are a sort of extension of the penal service, designed to make life uncomfortable so you get your act together. State provision should coerce rather empathise, and give encouragement to those who can rather than subsidise those who cant. The safety net should be just that, only for the very few who really can't look after themselves.
I admit this is a bit of a parody, but it is basically how it works. Its where the default position lies, the knee-jerk response to possible changes, the key mental framework of suspicion that has defeated the reform of social care time and again from left and right. Its a tribal dead end which sadly the current Parliament seems more entrenched in than ever.
There is an alternative way of looking at things, one which sees society as CIVIC in nature, and human in composition, where the STATE is SERVANT, and by implication its employees. We used to have a strong civic society, with churches, schools, trade unions, residents associations, sports groups, scouts and youth clubs bonding people together with natural streams of leadership which put power and leadership into the places and groups people chose to gather. The leaders of these groups had recognised power, what we might call status, which commanded respect. People would listen and respond not because they had to, but because it made sense. These were local people who knew their groups, lived with them, talked with them, listened to them and so could articulate their situation to people of power. Local political power was as a servant to these communities, in partnership.
For a while, I worked as part of South London Citizens which is a movement resurrecting the power of civic society and calling the political system, be it politicians or bureaucrats, to account. The approach outlined in the article is something similar. Its about saying that actual communities need to be resourced to deal with their own problems. You need to make listening to your community worthwhile, meaning that local leaders, be it individuals or groups, can command the resources to tweak the lives of their people in ways that ensure community life is humane, that is a response to empathy rather than targets. It is about the state not the State, about power being rebalanced between the state and the civic communities to which we belong, about accountability and enpowerment not to individuals but to groups.
I have long abandoned a sense that 'it' can be solved. Life is too complex, too random to be 'solved'. You have to live it, warts and all, and respond to the challenges that are constantly being presented to us. At the core of that, is the ability to empathise and to respond with wisdom. When Jesus said the poor would always be with us, he meant, I think, that we will always need to focus on how we look after 'us', that being a good neighbour is the basis of a healthy civic life. Jesus never talks about the state, because if you have a strong state you crush the neighbourhood, and its where human being meet naturally that power, that life is found. The rest is usually oppressive. Its nations that build armies, stockpile nuclear weapons, and threaten the environment through economic plans that override the local civic voices - be that in the Amazon or building new runways.
I am not arguing for no state, nor even a small state, but I am arguing for an accountable state, a humble state, a servant state. Get that right, and humanity can rise the best of itself to the surface and that's exactly what Cottam is, I think, arguing for.
Why? Because it talks about the state as servant. For much of my lifetime the debate has been shaped by a polarity between the Socialist Big State and the neo-Conservative Little State. With the former you get state control, state expenditure, the Big Nanny, politicial correctness and a whole managed society - not just a managed economy. The latter is homeless on the streets, minimum health care, tuition fees and care not in the community but left to the community, be that food banks or volunteering. The effect of BOTH is indifference at a personal level.
I say that because under socialist Big State the directive is that the State has the responsibility and the power to take care of everyone, from cradle to grave. Volunteers really get in the way, are untrained, amateur and uncontrolled with their own agendas. Individuals should abide by the collective. Nanny knows best.
The neo-conservative alternative has been to assert individual responsibility, that the poor should make an effort, pull their socks up, get on their bike. Social services are a sort of extension of the penal service, designed to make life uncomfortable so you get your act together. State provision should coerce rather empathise, and give encouragement to those who can rather than subsidise those who cant. The safety net should be just that, only for the very few who really can't look after themselves.
I admit this is a bit of a parody, but it is basically how it works. Its where the default position lies, the knee-jerk response to possible changes, the key mental framework of suspicion that has defeated the reform of social care time and again from left and right. Its a tribal dead end which sadly the current Parliament seems more entrenched in than ever.
There is an alternative way of looking at things, one which sees society as CIVIC in nature, and human in composition, where the STATE is SERVANT, and by implication its employees. We used to have a strong civic society, with churches, schools, trade unions, residents associations, sports groups, scouts and youth clubs bonding people together with natural streams of leadership which put power and leadership into the places and groups people chose to gather. The leaders of these groups had recognised power, what we might call status, which commanded respect. People would listen and respond not because they had to, but because it made sense. These were local people who knew their groups, lived with them, talked with them, listened to them and so could articulate their situation to people of power. Local political power was as a servant to these communities, in partnership.
For a while, I worked as part of South London Citizens which is a movement resurrecting the power of civic society and calling the political system, be it politicians or bureaucrats, to account. The approach outlined in the article is something similar. Its about saying that actual communities need to be resourced to deal with their own problems. You need to make listening to your community worthwhile, meaning that local leaders, be it individuals or groups, can command the resources to tweak the lives of their people in ways that ensure community life is humane, that is a response to empathy rather than targets. It is about the state not the State, about power being rebalanced between the state and the civic communities to which we belong, about accountability and enpowerment not to individuals but to groups.
I have long abandoned a sense that 'it' can be solved. Life is too complex, too random to be 'solved'. You have to live it, warts and all, and respond to the challenges that are constantly being presented to us. At the core of that, is the ability to empathise and to respond with wisdom. When Jesus said the poor would always be with us, he meant, I think, that we will always need to focus on how we look after 'us', that being a good neighbour is the basis of a healthy civic life. Jesus never talks about the state, because if you have a strong state you crush the neighbourhood, and its where human being meet naturally that power, that life is found. The rest is usually oppressive. Its nations that build armies, stockpile nuclear weapons, and threaten the environment through economic plans that override the local civic voices - be that in the Amazon or building new runways.
I am not arguing for no state, nor even a small state, but I am arguing for an accountable state, a humble state, a servant state. Get that right, and humanity can rise the best of itself to the surface and that's exactly what Cottam is, I think, arguing for.
Comments
Post a Comment