Why socialists and egalitarians hate the Big Society
A few months ago I visited a London prison where a group of volunteers were running a programme of restorative justice. Once a week and usually more these women would sacrifice hours of their time to go to a depressing environment to help complete strangers. Not just complete strangers, but not particularly nice ones either.
These are just the sorts of people David Cameron wants more of for his “Big Society”, which he’s re-launching today. It says much about the way socialist thinking has completely penetrated British life that even the idea of a voluntary society in which the state does not arrange everything is now considered unexplainably complicated to the British public.
Someone raised in the spirit of Victorian liberalism would understand instinctively the idea of civil society in which individuals and groups were joined through a network of obligation and trust, a society of “little platoons”; for most people today such ideas are as obscure as gnostic theological debates from the third century.
Cameron’s Big Society is, I think (and I admit I’m not entirely sure what he means, and probably nor is he), based on the idea that, not only is the state not especially good at running some things, but by trying to do so it’s actually eroding society by destroying the millions of social networks. This is aggravated by modern economic conditions in which people move houses and jobs too quickly for them to get to know their neighbours.
Instead of doing things ourselves, increasingly we have come to rely on the state to do not just the basic services, but even manage society. Compared to the United States, for instance, levels of volunteering, club membership and political activism in Britain are perilously low.
We all pay our high taxes and mostly obey the law and get on with it. Unfortunately, a society that lives merely by the “Golden Rule” will soon struggle to function economically or socially, as we are now – you need to live by the Platinum Rule, which is to do unto others better than they would to you.
And this is where Dave’s Big Society runs into its first major problem – volunteering is, and always will be, dominated by religious groups, almost all of which have views that are incompatible with the moral ethos of the elite; some of them have views that give me the willies, let alone Dave’s new Independent-reading friends in the SDP.
For example, I’m willing to bet that almost every one of those women I met giving up their time to care for prisoners would, if asked, tell you that gays are all going to Hell. They wouldn’t express this view publicly, of course, because not only would the Prison Service kick them out, they could even be investigated by police, but their evangelical Christianity is clear on the subject.
Not only that, but religious groups are also by their vary nature exclusive, and some are actively separatist. Although most of the mainline churches now see themselves as a wing of the race relations industry – which helps to explain many an empty pew – not all religious groups see “faith communities” this way.
And just as a civil society is, arguably, impossible without the strong social networks of a religion, so it’s perhaps impossible in a society with many religions. One of the reasons socialists love “diversity” so much is because it has to be policed and regulated by the state.
This is especially problematic here because of the ambiguity of how much these groups will be entirely voluntarily and how much state-subsidised. Harry’s Place has already warned that the Big Society will be an “Islamist Bunfight”.
It’s not just in prisons where religious groups dominate, either. Church schools are so much better than their secular equivalents because they have higher levels of social capital; parents, pupils, priests and teachers are better connected to each other outside of school and this sense of community aids learning and good behaviour. Even parents who don’t have religious belief recognise its use as a social adhesive.
The idea behind Free Schools is that, created by parent-volunteers, they will benefit from the same tight bonds sadly lacking in your typical comprehensive, but without the religious dogma or sectarianism of faith schools. You’d think “progressives” would be in favour.
Quite the opposite – the egalitarians hate “faith schools” not primarily because of the religious content but because, as elite state schools, they attract more middle-class pupils than others. Good church schools educate thousands of desperately poor children, and make a considerable effort to give them help and provide a social mix, but any organisation that provides a good product will become disproportionately middle class to a certain extent, just because there are always inequalities in life.
The same thing will happen in any area of Cameron’s Big Society, whether it’s communities that run their neighbourhood watch or their local museums. Everywhere it will be disproportionately full of middle-class types with education and time, and so will be accused of “excluding the most deprived members of society” – because only the Big State can strive for equality of outcome. Until the Conservatives and “real Liberals” take on that unobtainable, and evil, goal the Big Society can never take off.
-
The Multicultural Inquisition: Scientology is NOT the greatest threat to religious freedom
July 20th, 2010 13:30Comment on this
-
Why socialists and egalitarians hate the Big Society
July 19th, 2010 12:54
-
Keeping the Yorkshire Ripper in jail is crueller than hanging, and that's why it's right
July 16th, 2010 15:08
-
David Cameron is right about the Dianafication of Raoul Moat
July 15th, 2010 11:20
-
Sell the England football team, turn zoos into schools, tax sandals – weird stuff, but digital democracy is the way forward
July 14th, 2010 16:50