This government has repeatedly shown itself incapable of thinking beyond the level of the individual. In doing so it has sidelined questions about the kind of society that it's policies are creating.
Simon Ravenscroft is a PhD student at the University of Cambridge, working on the social theory of Ivan Illich
This government has repeatedly shown itself incapable of thinking beyond the level of the individual. In doing so it has sidelined questions about the kind of society that its policies are creating.
This is its chief ideological victory. To the extent the left gets dragged into debating questions posed on the level of the individual, it has already lost the main argument. Instead it should be seeking to ask its own questions.
I want to look at one example in depth to illustrate my more general point. Since I live and work in a university, I’ll pick the debate over the tripling of higher education tuition fees. This was a debate the left lost, and so it’s worth looking to it for some lessons.
At the time the government and media mantra in justification of this policy was: “People with degrees get higher-paying jobs, should they not be expected to pay for this privilege?”
Ideologically speaking this is a trick question, because whether you answer yes or no you’ve already been dragged into thinking about higher education in an individualist way – that is, as education as a private, individual good. Many protestors against the government agenda fell into this trap by turning to the language of ‘rights’: “Education should be free because it is my human right”.
This doesn’t go anything like far enough. The language of rights still requires us to think about education in private, individualised terms (“my right to my education, which benefits me”).
But higher education is not just a private good, it is also a public good. And this is the point that is continually glossed over in debates. For example, having a highly-educated populace is crucial for a healthy and thriving democracy; it enhances our common life, both culturally and otherwise; there are also economic benefits that are felt beyond the level of the individual by society as a whole.
Given this, is it not right that there is a public contribution to higher education, given that we all feel the benefit? Reducing the question to the level of the individual (and forcing students to think about it this way by loading them with debt), only inhibits a whole generation’s ability to think of themselves as part of something bigger than themselves – a society – to which they should be contributing.
A better question would be: “what kind of society do we want to have?” Do we really want to live in a society where only those who are already wealthy, or only those who are willing to take on huge debt, or only those who don’t understand the implications of debt are able to gain a university education?
If we take the point that higher education is a public good, we then have to talk about how we distribute this public good. Two common views here are that, on one hand, we should have a meritocratic distribution (people are given university places on the basis of ‘intellectual merit’), and on the other, an egalitarian distribution (as many places as we have should be distributed equally among all those who want them).
One can debate which of these is better, but it is worth noting that (as Cambridge philosopher Raymond Geuss has said) neither of these forms of distribution are the same as distribution based on who has the ability to pay, or who is willing to take on huge debt. The latter form of distribution is horrifically regressive by contrast, creating significant barriers for the poorest in our society and giving the better off an even greater head-start than they already have.
Of course, throw up these kinds of objections and the old chestnut gets thrown back, “we don’t have any money to pay for it anymore”. But we know that governments always have money to pay for what they want, and never have it for what they don’t want.
Those on the right regularly manipulate the direction in which public debate goes by asking particular kinds of questions that have individualist assumptions. Take discussions around healthcare and patient contributions. The question is: “if you’ve had the treatment, sure you should pay for it?”
Those who really want to resist this proposal must refuse to answer this question. They must respond by asking instead, “do we want to live in a kind of society where access to healthcare for the sick and injured is based on their ability to pay?”.
If the left is to protect other public goods it fought for so many years to establish, like the NHS, then it needs to look more carefully at the questions it’s faced with, and consider asking different ones. This is crucial if it is going to successfully defend a vision of society that is more than just a collection of self-interested individuals who happen to live in the same geographical area.
20 Responses to “The left must ask the right questions as well as provide the right answers”
JR
A very valuable perspective. The sclerotic debate within ‘the left’ has been unable to cope with the way that political discourse has changed.
Michael Sandel’s work on markets, and a few wider texts, are valuable contributions. But the political sphere is largely unmoved, and the ‘left’ (read Labour here) has been unable, or unwilling, to articulate a contrasting opinion.
Though wider than the core message of your article, I feel that the Union dispute / debate has a key role to play. Unions are a valuable, democratic part of our society. But they can also be the most rigid of institutions, and must reform themselves – just as Labour and the ‘left’ must reform. Without these changes, a realistic platform for ‘social’ justice rather than ‘individual’ justice will be hard to create.
S Ravenscroft
Thanks for this. I was glad to see Miliband using Sandel at last year’s conference, particularly in relation to questions around the NHS (he was acknowledging that the NHS deals with different kinds of ‘goods’ than merely economic goods, and that marketising the NHS would be disastrous for this reason — I found this quite refreshing and a break from the creeping economism of New Labour). But in general I agree with you that there needs to be a far greater shift than there has been. Your Union comments are thought-provoking.
OldLb
It goes directly to your claim in your article that the money is there. It isn’t because the debts are being ignored.
If you ignore the debts, you can come to any conclusion you want. Either from the right saying 10% taxation, or the left saying more welfare all round. It’s deluded.
The money has been spent. The welfare state is bankrupt and the poor are the ones that will be destitute as a result.
Take this
===========
do we want to live in a kind of society where access to healthcare for the sick and injured is based on their ability to pay?
===========
Again, its wrong.
The problem is that healthcare costs, irrespective of the user directly paying, paying via insurance, or paying via tax.
So what happens in the UK when the state can’t pay? It’s that debt again. Growing exponentially.
You end up with a society you don’t want, because of your actions of spending and ignoring the debts.
It’s back to that assumption your making. There is no debt is the whopper.
blarg1987
How can the state ow 8 trillion when you said in 2010 it owed 5? based even on your figures there is some fiddiling or porkies being told.
But why do you not write your on blog on this issue, go to the TPA, adam smith etc and ask them to publish your work, maybe even become a financial columnist for a newpaper if your data is accurate as you keep implying then they would bite of their hand to have you would they not?
P.S. have you taken this to your MP?
OldLb
How do you know what the state owes?
1. 1.2 trillion for borrowing
2. 0.4 trillion for PFI
3. Pensions. 2010, 5.01 trillion, rising at 0.734 trillion a year. Do the maths, its 2013
4. Nuclear decommissioning – another 100 bn
…
All liabilities unless you are committing accounting fraud. FRS17 and GAAP for the debts.
Meanwhile, unless you can post the details of how much the state owes for pensions, you’re talking bollocks.