Tuesday 23 November 2010
Re-thinking Neo-Liberalism
Quick thought on train home: neo-liberalism's accused of giving everything an economic cost; if we talk of value doesn't that broaden things but remain within broad discourse? What impact does differentiating price and value have on neo-liberalism?
Monday 22 November 2010
20 Years After Thatcher: The Real Legacy to Society
So it is 20 years today since Thatcher announced her resignation - and on Sunday it is the anniversary of her leaving Downing Street. It is one of the earliest political memories I remember: I was a child of Thatcher (born in 1983) and so the idea of having a female, conservative Prime Minister was all I knew so the day of her fall made quite a mark.
In many senses, the influence of her politics still hangs over the UK. Her style of politics along with the paradigm shift that occurred in economic and social life at the same time can still be seen. Many would argue that the current Conservative/Lib Dem administration and the New Labour movement showed many similarities with the Thatcher administration and ideology: driving for economic efficiency, an efficiency/target-based approach to services, a state that is responsive to needs but increasingly socially aware.
I've just finished (for the second time) Suzy Harris' "The Governance of Education: How neo-liberalism is transforming policy and practice" which examines the rise of neo-liberalism. The book is heavily critical of neo-liberalism as it was born out of the new-right agenda (which Thatcher and Reagan created); Harris argues that academics, politicians and, indeed, society as a whole should seek freedom from the neo-liberal project which reduces everything to economic arguments with "no space for intellectual and moral questions."
And this is one of the fundamental problems with the critiques of the conservative/neo-liberal model; many presume it is only the left that are morally aware and intellectually engaging with the troubles of the day. Many from the right would refute this. Thatcher may have argued that "society is dead" but in fact she was reflecting a change in our relationship with society. Her full interview discusses individuals supporting each-other (rather than the state) and this has, in some ways, developed into the 'big society' theme.
The Conservative Party have allowed those from the left (primarily labour) to take the social and moral high ground by not explaining their values. Tories often come across as slightly embarrassed; those in academia can feel crowded out but surely must exist in reasonable numbers. Those from the right lack the confidence to explain their position. So the (over?) confidence & policy cohesion of Thatcher has lead to a loss of identity & confidence in what the Tories now stand for.
The current conservative party (with the help of their Lib Dem colleagues) seem to be locating themselves in a form of conservatism which in addition to its economic values is also socially and morally responsible. This leads to a society:
- Where the individual is more capable of improving their lot than the state (though the state must nurture and support them).
- Where the state should equalise (though not redistribute) wealth.
- Where the individual knows how to better spend their money than the state (so when it is safe, lower taxation is good).
- Where the freedom of the individual is not over-ridden by the state protecting the individual.
- Where a market-approach to services (including higher education) is not a bad thing as competition forces everyone to improve their game and provide better services for all.
- Where Britain's world position is stronger by engaging with the other countries but not being dominated by them, including a fuller role within Europe.
- Where economic conservatism and social liberalism come together.
Fundamentally, this means a society which is equal for all, whatever their gender, age, race, income or sexuality and it is the role of every one (in partnership with government) to insist on this.
I have been criticised for some time (by both some left-leaning friends and my PhD tutor) for being trapped by the neo-liberal agenda; increasingly I realise that this 'agenda' is not one I am trapped within but one which I chose to believe in. Now, I know that I will not agree with every Tory policy or politician (just as I don't agree with every doctrine or clergy member of the church). But I am happy to associate myself with many of the under-pinning ideologies of the right. This needs to be reflected in my research in a reflective, value-centred way – in the same way that the entire conservative party message needs to be under-pinned by reflection & values.
So 20 years after Thatcher, rather than leaving economic-influenced approach to society and social division as her parting gift, perhaps her real legacy to politics should be seen as socially-focussed policy and starting the development of a new society.
In many senses, the influence of her politics still hangs over the UK. Her style of politics along with the paradigm shift that occurred in economic and social life at the same time can still be seen. Many would argue that the current Conservative/Lib Dem administration and the New Labour movement showed many similarities with the Thatcher administration and ideology: driving for economic efficiency, an efficiency/target-based approach to services, a state that is responsive to needs but increasingly socially aware.
I've just finished (for the second time) Suzy Harris' "The Governance of Education: How neo-liberalism is transforming policy and practice" which examines the rise of neo-liberalism. The book is heavily critical of neo-liberalism as it was born out of the new-right agenda (which Thatcher and Reagan created); Harris argues that academics, politicians and, indeed, society as a whole should seek freedom from the neo-liberal project which reduces everything to economic arguments with "no space for intellectual and moral questions."
And this is one of the fundamental problems with the critiques of the conservative/neo-liberal model; many presume it is only the left that are morally aware and intellectually engaging with the troubles of the day. Many from the right would refute this. Thatcher may have argued that "society is dead" but in fact she was reflecting a change in our relationship with society. Her full interview discusses individuals supporting each-other (rather than the state) and this has, in some ways, developed into the 'big society' theme.
The Conservative Party have allowed those from the left (primarily labour) to take the social and moral high ground by not explaining their values. Tories often come across as slightly embarrassed; those in academia can feel crowded out but surely must exist in reasonable numbers. Those from the right lack the confidence to explain their position. So the (over?) confidence & policy cohesion of Thatcher has lead to a loss of identity & confidence in what the Tories now stand for.
The current conservative party (with the help of their Lib Dem colleagues) seem to be locating themselves in a form of conservatism which in addition to its economic values is also socially and morally responsible. This leads to a society:
- Where the individual is more capable of improving their lot than the state (though the state must nurture and support them).
- Where the state should equalise (though not redistribute) wealth.
- Where the individual knows how to better spend their money than the state (so when it is safe, lower taxation is good).
- Where the freedom of the individual is not over-ridden by the state protecting the individual.
- Where a market-approach to services (including higher education) is not a bad thing as competition forces everyone to improve their game and provide better services for all.
- Where Britain's world position is stronger by engaging with the other countries but not being dominated by them, including a fuller role within Europe.
- Where economic conservatism and social liberalism come together.
Fundamentally, this means a society which is equal for all, whatever their gender, age, race, income or sexuality and it is the role of every one (in partnership with government) to insist on this.
I have been criticised for some time (by both some left-leaning friends and my PhD tutor) for being trapped by the neo-liberal agenda; increasingly I realise that this 'agenda' is not one I am trapped within but one which I chose to believe in. Now, I know that I will not agree with every Tory policy or politician (just as I don't agree with every doctrine or clergy member of the church). But I am happy to associate myself with many of the under-pinning ideologies of the right. This needs to be reflected in my research in a reflective, value-centred way – in the same way that the entire conservative party message needs to be under-pinned by reflection & values.
So 20 years after Thatcher, rather than leaving economic-influenced approach to society and social division as her parting gift, perhaps her real legacy to politics should be seen as socially-focussed policy and starting the development of a new society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
