Communitarianism: don’t let it be misunderstood

Since the 1990s, the terms ‘communitarian’ and ‘communitarianism’ have found their way into media commentary as well as academics texts. This is not surprising as it was around that time that ‘communitarianism’ came to be applied to the ideas of a number of philosophers who criticised certain individualistic conceptions of morality and justice [Note 1], and ‘communitarian’ was used by a range of social and political theorists in the UK and the US to describe the approaches they were putting forward [Note 2]. On the basis of these writings, a distinct outlook can be discerned and indeed traced back to precursors in the 19^th and early 20^th century [Note 3].

One would suppose that commentators and academics using the term ‘communitarian’ in their writings would base it on the actual ideas expressed by the thinkers we alluded to above [Note 4]. Unfortunately, many of them seem to connect it simply to anything that is about community. If someone has written a reactionary book lamenting the loss of traditional communities, they refer to the book as ‘communitarian’. If a politician gives a speech about communities, rather than the state, must deal with their own problems, they say that is a ‘communitarian’ speech. But to use a word so casually, cut off from its intellectual roots, is irresponsibly misleading.

Based on the works of the thinkers who can legitimately be regarded as exponents of distinct communitarian ideas (and not just anyone who has written about communities), the following misunderstanding ought to be cleared up once and for all.

Traditions

While there are commentators who associate communitarianism with nostalgic attachment to old traditions, even though these may be oppressive, the fact is that none of the communitarians identified above can be accused of having such sentiments. On the contrary, their emphasis is on the evolving experiences of communities and how traditions should be preserved and celebrated in so far as they enhance people’s sense of their wellbeing, but should be revised or even ended if they are found to cause harm and instability for community members. As for the much-quoted dichotomy of Gemeinschaft (tightly knit traditional community) or Gesellschaft (loose association of self-centred individuals), communitarians reject both and call for strong cooperative communities based on mutual respect and shared intelligence [Note 5].

Responsibilities & Rights

Communitarians are often alleged to have focused on the need for people to take responsibility for their own lives and neglected the importance of their rights. Based on their actual writings, it would be more accurate to say that they are concerned that people should take their social responsibilities seriously, especially those with considerable wealth and power as they accordingly ought to do more for their communities. At the same time, communities should ensure that appropriate rights to mutual respect and support are established for their members, and that these are honoured to avoid fragmentation and marginalisation. 

Community Autonomy 

Some conservative-minded writers have written about leaving communities to sort out their own problems regardless of whether or not they lack the financial resources to do so, or if those problems are rooted in local prejudices and oppressive arrangements. But for communitarian thinkers, no individual or community should be cut off from the outside world as though their fate is no one else’s business. Diverse individuals and communities form social connections, and it their shared experiences – not some ideology about what governments should or should not do – that reveal what level of cooperation and wider support are appropriate to deal with the difficulties they face. In practice, cosmopolitan engagement is more dependable than parochial seclusion.

Reactionary or Progressive 

Although some may still insist on calling any conservative writer who champions ‘traditional values’ or ‘small government’ a communitarian, the fact remains that the paradigmatic thinkers who used the ‘communitarian’ term to describe what they put forward, and those who have influenced their ideas, are all on the progressive side of the political spectrum. Jonathan Boswell and Robert Bellah opposed ‘free market’ ideology and referred to their own position as ‘democratic communitarianism’. Philip Selznick, Amitai Etzioni, and Robert Putnam summed up their stance as ‘liberal communitarianism’. David Miller and Charles Derber stressed that what they advocated was best understood as a form of ‘left communitarianism’. David Marquand wrote of his “vision of a communitarian ethical socialism”. And Henry Tam has used the label, ‘progressive communitarianism’ [Note 6].

Communitarianism offers important insights and approaches for dealing with a wide range of social and political challenges.  But the misunderstanding of it as some form of conservative thinking has become a barrier to more people exploring it.  Perhaps we can help to change that.

--

Henry Tam is the author of:

·      Communitarianism: a new agenda for politics and citizenship (Palgrave Macmillan, 1998).

·      'Communitarianism', in the Encyclopedia of Action Research (Sage Publications, 2014).

·      ‘Communitarianism, sociology of’, in International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, James D. Wright (editor-in-chief), (Elsevier, 2015). 

·      ‘Communitarianism’ in The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Relativism, ed. by Martin Kusch (Routledge, 2020).

·      The Evolution of Communitarian Ideas (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019).

·      Communitarianism: philosophy, politics & public policy (Bloomsbury, forthcoming 2025).

He is also the editor of the following books on communitarian arguments and policies:

·      Punishment, Excuses and Moral Development (Avebury Press, 1996).

·      Progressive Politics in the Global Age (Polity, 2001).

·      Tomorrow’s Communities: lessons in community-based transformation in the age of global crises(Policy Press, 2021). 

--

NOTES

Note 1: These include Alasdair MacIntyre, Charles Taylor, Michael Walzer, and Michael Sandel, whose critiques of certain forms of individualism came under the general heading of ‘communitarianism’ in academic circles in the 1990s. None of them adopted the label themselves.

Note 2: These thinkers were from the UK (e.g., David Miller, Jonathan Boswell, David Marquand, Henry Tam) and the US (e.g., Philip Selznick, Amitai Etzioni, Robert Bellah, Robert Putnam, Charles Derber). Unlike those mentioned in Note 1, they all used ‘communitarian’ and ‘communitarianism’ to designate the ideas they were putting forward.

Note 3: Thinkers who have been recognised as precursors to the modern development of communitarianism include Emile Durkheim, John Dewey, L.T. Hobhouse, Jane Addams, and Mary Parker Follett. The intellectual lineage can be traced further back to the cooperative movement initiated by Robert Owen and his followers – indeed the term ‘communitarian’ was coined in association with Owenite ideas and practices in the 19^th century.

Note 4: For more details of these thinkers and their writings, see Tam, H., The Evolution of Communitarian Ideas (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019).

Note 5: See the work of Durkheim, Dewey, and Hobhouse on ideas relating to the development of organic solidarity (as distinct from the mechanical solidarity integral to any form of Gemeinschaft).

Note 6: These are the paradigmatic writers who in the 1990s defined communitarian thinking with key texts in which they set out ideas they would explicitly associate with the terms ‘communitarian’/‘communitarianism’. There were of course conservative writers who put forward quite different views on community life, but they did not adopt the label ‘communitarian’, and there is no reason why they should be taken to be representative of communitarianism which is quite clearly non-conservative. Calling them ‘communitarians’ would be akin to coming across people who argue that one’s own utility/happiness is all that matters, and calling them ‘utilitarians’.  

Reinventing Community Hubs

Is it inevitable that unsuspecting sheep will always flock to wool-draped wolves?

In recent decades, there has been a notable upsurge of support for ‘populist’ leaders across the world. Their mix of vicious rhetoric, illiberal policies, and plutocratic devotion masked as the championing of freedom, attract votes from people whose quality of life is only made worse by ‘populist’ actions such as reckless tax cuts; devastation of public services; termination of vital trade relations; fuelling of environmental damages; diversion of resources to target scapegoats; and depleting protection for the vulnerable.

One oft-cited explanation of this phenomenon is that in times of social and economic uncertainty, more people will look for leaders who exude authority and give them a sense that they have a place in a ‘system’ where they will be respected. The ‘system’ tends to be a projected culture wherein people are urged to blame designated scapegoats for all ills, feel proud of their own ‘righteousness’, and condemn calls for social, economic, or environmental improvements as ‘nasty’, ‘woke’, ‘establishment’, ‘socialist’ (or any term that’s handy).

However, while there is a small minority who may be susceptible to the lure of hate and faux superiority, most people are not likely to be taken in by some mythical ‘good old days’ culture (where everyone knows their ‘place’) – unless they are left cut off by growing uncertainties, and feel that nobody gives a damn about their predicament.

This is the critical point where either ‘populist’ charlatans get to greet them with their grand deception, or others step in to offer them real hope and understanding.

The second option is where we need a new form of community hub that can give people a positive sense of connection and better awareness of what should be done for their common wellbeing. This type of community hub will have four key features:

[1] Services to meet needs

They will meet local needs with affordable goods in a manner akin to the cooperative services set up by the Rochdale Pioneers. Any surplus will be passed back to the community in the form of user dividends and support for free services such as the provision of advice on a wide range of personal and financial issues; food (including communal growing and cooking support) and other basics for those short of money; leisure activities designed and led by local people; and time banking to facilitate the giving and receiving of help for each other in the community. 

[2] Community development to exert influence 

They will act as a focal point for the exploration and development of community action. Ongoing engagement with those who visit the hub for its services, and outreach work to involve those who do not, are to provide a basis for pressing public and private sector bodies to respond to the concerns of the community. Consensus-building and conflict-resolution techniques will be applied to deal with classic ‘divide and ignore’ attempts by external agencies. Support is to be available for the development of community-based schemes for energy, credit, housing, etc.

[3] Social events to build relationships 

They will organise events to bring people together and enrich their mutual understanding. Just as intergenerational activities will be designed to help people of different ages to appreciate each other better, cultural and other types of events will also be arranged to inclusively enable different groups and individuals to discover more about what they have not been previously familiar with. People with contrasting identities – whatever these may be – can bond over food, music, personal history, and conversation; and set up interest groups (drama, gardening, art, etc.) that welcome all identities.

[4] Learning to enhance understanding

They will serve as a centre for lifelong learning, with a particular emphasis on current affairs and public policies. Sessions will include both input from experts and examination by deliberative group discussions. Key topics to address will cover: assessing the reliability of images and reports; differentiating sources of information based on their credentials and track record; unpacking lies, misrepresentation and empty promises in political rhetoric; reconciling conflicting views in a civil manner; understanding what is offensive and threatening as opposed to what is contrived as ‘unacceptable’.

The cooperative movement – with its experience in service provision for communities, engagement with local people, support for socially constructive activities, involvement in education, and commitment to shaping democratic political change – is well placed to develop this new kind of Civic Community Hubs. To give people real hope and understanding so they turn away from scoundrels and false prophets, and join with others who genuinely care about building a better future together, let the development of these hubs commence.

 

No More Babies?

Politicians riding the anti-migration bandwagon are prone to say, “Our country can’t take any more people”. Do they really mean to say that there are too many people already, and we must bring our population down?

Given that people can generate as well as consume resources, it cannot be assumed that simply reducing the population is a good thing. Some might try to argue that there is an optimum level where the population size is just right and any increase would have terrible effects. But what is this level, and are we anywhere near it?

Take the UK for example. On all the evidence, we need more, not fewer people to keep the country going. We have an ageing population that requires more people than we have at the moment to support them. We have labour shortages in many areas causing problems in service, production, and distribution in a range of sectors. The birth rate is in decline which means young recruits will be increasingly difficult to find in the coming years.

Do the ‘Our Country is Full’ brigade want us nonetheless to stop any addition to the population? Are they going to campaign for total birth control? Is ‘No More Babies’ going to be their next electoral slogan?

The UK birth rate has already dropped in 2022 to 11.322 per 1,000 (the lowest level since 2002), giving an overall level of new births of 764,325 (based on population estimate of 67.508 million – Office for National Statistics). While the ONS estimated that net migration to the UK was 745,000 in 2022, its projections point to that figure falling to just 245,000 per year [Note 1]. 

With fewer and fewer people to fill critical job vacancies, to drive economic growth, to care for the frail and ageing, to produce innovations, to make purchases that keep shops and factories open, to pay taxes – the future is bleak rather than rosy. 

Against this backdrop, with all the relentless talk of ‘we have too many mouths to feed as it is’, it won’t be surprising if the birth rate goes down even further. The only salvation left is people coming to this country, migrants who want to make a better life by working hard and contributing more. While the native new born will need to be nurtured for 16-18 more years before they can play their part in serving society, new arrivals are predominantly adults with ready skills and determination to prove themselves socially and economically worthy.

Far from trying to devise all kinds of deterrent to put people off from joining us, we should be encouraging them to make their home here and enrich our country in financial and cultural terms. People who work in food production give us more nourishment than they consume. People who work in IT development help to advance our technology rather than set it back. To suggest that migrants coming to work are depleting what we have is to flip truth on its head.

But what about the ‘warning’ that we are too over-crowded to accommodate any more people? It conjures up the image of a land with no space left. Yet nothing could be more misleading. Barely 12% of land in the UK is developed with homes, other buildings, roads, and urban green space. That leaves 88% for everything else (agriculture, forests, lakes and rivers, etc) [Note 2], much of which is owned by a tiny minority of people – indeed, half of all the land in the UK is controlled by just 25,000 very rich landowners [Note 3] – that’s about 0.03% of our population. If only some of these landowners would allow a fraction of their holdings to be used for housing that people can afford, everyone in the country could have a spacious home.

--

Note 1: The Migration Observatory (University of Oxford): https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/reports/why-are-the-latest-net-migration-figures-not-a-reliable-guide-to-future-trends/

Note 2: Office for National Statistics: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/ukenvironmentalaccounts/2014-07-02#land-use-experimental

Note 3: The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/apr/17/who-owns-england-thousand-secret-landowners-author

Remember the Ides of March

Ides of March – the midpoint of the third month, made famous by the killing of the dictator, Julius Caesar. Many in the past have glorified Caesar as a great military campaigner, and glamorised him as a charismatic leader who knew just how to get people on side.

However, the more historians have uncovered about his brutality, not just in slaughtering those who sought to resist Roman conquest, but in destroying fellow Romans who tried to prevent him from amassing absolute power, the more he is seen as the ruthless manipulator he truly was. 

By the time Caesar emerged as a politician in 69 BC, Rome had put an end to the kingly rule for over four centuries. Instead, power was shared with the people through elected public officials. No one person could have the power to dictate to others, except in times of emergency when that was necessary to have one decision-maker to take control, but even then, the arrangement was strictly time-limited and the person entrusted with that power was still ultimately accountable to the senate. 

But Caesar wanted to have the power of a king, to be able to impose his will on everyone else with no check or balance. To achieve that, he knew he had to dismantle the Roman system of power sharing and public accountability. Others such as Cato the Younger, Cassius, and Brutus knew that too, and they came to realise that Caesar must be stopped from taking ever more power to control the country.

Alas, Caesar had been able to sway more and more senators to back him, stir up mobs to ensure public expression of support favour him, and command battle-hardened troops to defeat those who opposed him. When the desperate act of assassination came on 15 March, 44 BC, it was too late. The Roman republic was disintegrating. The power to rule had been so twisted that kingly control by any name had established itself. It did not take long for Caesar’s adopted son, Octavius, to rid himself of his one-time allies, Lepidus and Mark Antony, and reign supreme as Augustus Caesar. Following him, the absolute power to rule would always be vested in (or seized by) one man who would be addressed reverentially by all other Romans as Caesar.

Anyone wondering why having one person with absolute power is so bad may reflect for a moment on the names of Caesars such as Nero, Caligula, Commodus, and their notorious cruelty, incompetence, wastefulness, and depravity. In a republic, a poor leader has to step down if they lack electoral support. Under a Caesar, you protest in vain and still risk being executed.

Many US Republicans, contrary to the name of their party, are yearning for their own Caesar – someone who will wield power without ‘liberal’ constraints, control the judicial system with his own acolytes, hunt down his political enemies, invoke election results only when they are in his favour.  They may yet get their wish.

Except the Caesar they end up with may well be in the mould of a Nero or Caligula.

Love Labour’s Facts

If you know anything about politics, it can’t be easy to keep hearing people say things like “politicians are all the same”, or “I can’t see any difference between these parties”. But instead of shaking your head in disbelief, try sharing a few observations. Calmly, sincerely, point to a few facts which will illustrate what having different political parties in power can really mean to our lives.

Here's one list I’ve put together comparing the Labour Party with the Conservatives in the UK.  You may want to add/adapt for your own use (a similar exercise can be done comparing the Democrats and Republicans in the US, and for political rivals in other countries): 

Crime

After the Conservatives gained power in 2010, central government funding for policing was in eight years cut by 20% in real terms, resulting in the closure of 600 out of 900 police stations in England – with London particularly hit hard with the number of police stations falling from 153 in 2010 to just 45 in 2018 [Note 1]. Not surprisingly, while recorded crime in England and Wales fell by 8.7% under the previous Labour Government (1997-2010), under the Tories it shot up by 59.5% from 4.2 million to 6.7 million (2010-23) [Note 2].

Homes

Labour’s commitment to develop social housing and reduce homelessness was not shared by the Conservatives. The Tory approach is more reflected by their Housing Minister who sought to help one of their donors avoid tax in the development of a luxury housing scheme [Note 3], while support for the building of social rented homes was radically cut. In 2010/11, nearly 36,000 social rented homes were started in England. But funding cuts introduced by the Conservatives meant that a year later the number was reduced by a staggering 91.6% to just over 3,000 [Note 4]. By 2021/22, factoring the selling off/demolishing of social homes, there was a net loss of 14,100 social homes in England, with 1.2 million households in 2023 stuck on waiting lists (a rise of 5% over the previous two years) [Note: 5]. In the meantime, homelessness across the UK has increased by 74% from when the Tories took power in 2010 to 2023 [Note 6]. 

Children

The last Labour Government gave the country the Sure Start programme to help parents and children. Independent research found that access to Sure Start services led to better social development and behaviour for children, and less negative parenting and more supportive home-learning environment for families [Note 7]. When the Conservatives took power in 2010, one of their first decisions was to cut Sure Start support for children in their critical formative years, and it resulted in the closure of 1,416 Sure Start centres in England [Note 8]. 

Health

The National Health Service was established by a Labour government in 1948. According to the independent National Centre for Social Research, it achieved its highest ever level of public satisfaction (70%) when Labour was last in power in 2010. Under the Tories, with their haphazard organisational changes and perennial underfunding of the NHS, satisfaction had by 2022 dropped to 30%.  On the measure of people expressing dissatisfaction, the worst ever record of over 50% came under the Conservative Government (in 2022). Worth noting that the last time dissatisfaction with the NHS reached the 50% mark also came under the Tories – in 1997 before they lost power to Labour [Note 9]. Even so-called ‘moderate’ Tories have advocated a move to a health insurance system which in the case of the US, has led to many left unable to pay the insurance premiums, and countless being routinely denied vital treatment and medication because private insurance companies reject their claims [Note 10].

Reducing the National Debt

Despite endless attempts to suggest otherwise, the facts are unmistakable: Labour in government consistently brings down the national debt better than the Conservatives. When the figures over all the time they are in office respectively are taken into account, and the average is calculated to make for a fair comparison, Labour borrows less than the Conservatives. In other words, it is the Conservatives, not Labour, who add most to the national debt. Furthermore, Labour has always repaid more debt, more often than the Conservatives. This holds true regardless if the figures after the 2008 global financial crisis were included or not [Note 11]. 

Tackling Corruption

Why should anyone think Conservative politicians are more corrupt than those in other parties? 16 MPs were found to have claimed for rent in London on their expenses while earning money by letting out their London homes – 14 of them were Conservatives. During the Covid pandemic, health-related contracts were handed by the Conservative Government to 15 firms that were connected with millions of pounds donated to the Conservative Party. These firms were given over a billion pounds in government contracts, even though some of them had no track record in providing what was being ordered [Note 12]. And between 2010 and 2019, Tory politicians received over £3.5m from wealthy Russian funders [Note 13]. 

Investing in Infrastructure

After years of cuts by the Conservatives under Thatcher, the Labour Government of 1997-2010 made it a priority to renovate public infrastructure – including school buildings. Its final phase included the £55 billion Building Better Schools for the Future programme. However, when the Conservatives regained power in 2010, it swiftly abolished the programme. School buildings were once again being neglected for lack of funding. In 2023, more than 100 schools and colleges were told by the Conservative Government to fully or partially shut buildings due to the non-replacement of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC), as it could lead to structural instability and building collapse [Note 14]. 

Handling Global Crises

When the 2008 global financial crisis hit the UK, the Labour Government responded swiftly to protect the economy and steer towards recovery. While the UK’s GDP dropped by 0.15% in 2008, Labour’s actions brought economic growth up to 2.43% by 2010 [Note 15]. Then the Tories came in, ignored the fact that the financial crisis was caused by excessive banking deregulation driven by ‘free market’ Thatcherites and US Republicans which led to irresponsible lending worldwide, and focused instead on austerity policies that stifled economic growth. When it was the Conservatives’ turn to have to deal with a global crisis (Covid-19), it performed poorly – in 2020, UK’s real GDP fell by around 10%, worse than most other developed countries [Note 16]; while excess deaths in the UK (from January 2020 to June 2021) were higher than in most West European and high-income countries [Note 17]. 

Local Government 

Labour in power supported local government with reliable funding, neighbourhood management, and local regeneration. After the Conservatives took charge in 2010, central government funding for local authorities fell in real terms by over 50% between 2010–11 and 2020–21 [Note 18]. This has led to severe cuts to services across the board – environmental protection, social services, library, education, road maintenance, housing – and one in five council leaders have expressed concerns that their councils will go bankrupt by 2025 [Note 19]. 

The Voluntary Sector

The voluntary and community sector was well supported by the Labour Government with dedicated programmes such as Active Community, Together We Can, Take Part, Guide Neighbourhoods, and Empowerment Partnerships. From 2010, the Conservative Government ended all these programmes, cut support for numerous groups that served their communities, and terminated funding which resulted in the closure of over 1,000 national and local infrastructure organisations that provided crucial support to countless other groups in the sector [Note 20]. 

--

NOTES

Note 1: Josiah Mortimer, Byline Times, 18 April 2023: 

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/04/18/hundreds-of-police-stations-have-shut-under-the-conservatives-at-a-cost-of-rising-crime/

Note 2: Crime Statistics, Ministry of Justice: Recorded crime under Labour fell from 4.6 million to 4.2 million: https://data.justice.gov.uk/cjs-statistics/cjs-crime

Note 3: Jon Stone, 22 July 2020, The Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/robert-jenrick-richard-desmond-housing-tory-donor-westferry-a9631876.html

Note 4: National Housing Association (figures up to 2011/12): https://www.housing.org.uk/about-housing-associations/about-social-housing/#:~:text=Although%20housing%20associations%20used%20their,social%20rented%20homes%20were%20started

Note 5: Shelter, 26 January 2023: https://england.shelter.org.uk/media/press_release/14000_social_homes_lost_last_year_as_over_a_million_households_sit_on_waiting_lists

Note 6: City Harvest Charity, 20 December 2023: https://cityharvest.org.uk/blog/homelessness-uk-increased-by-74-since-2010/?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIheGuxf_hgwMVXIBQBh21PAzaEAAYASAAEgIjf_D_BwE

Note 7: The Lancet, November 8, 2008: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(08)61687-6/fulltext  

Note 8: Anoosh Chakelian, ‘Replacing lost Sure Start centres is a tacit admission of austerity’s failure’, The New Statesman, 10 February 2023: https://www.newstatesman.com/thestaggers/2023/02/replacing-lost-sure-start-centres-is-a-tacit-admission-of-austeritys-failure

Note 9: Denis Campbell, The Guardian: 29 March 2023: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/29/satisfaction-with-the-nhs-plummets-to-lowest-level-in-40-years (respondents to the survey can choose from ‘very satisfied’, ‘quite satisfied’, ‘very dissatisfied’, ‘quite dissatisfied’, and ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’)

Note 10: Jon Stone, ‘Jeremy Hunt co-authored book calling for NHS to be replaced with private insurance’, The Independent, 10 February 2016: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-hunt-privatise-nhs-tories-privatising-private-insurance-market-replacement-direct-democracy-a6865306.html

Note 11: Richard Murphy, Tax Research, 24 June, 2021: https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2021/06/24/the-tories-have-always-borrowed-more-than-labour-and-always-repaid-less-they-are-the-party-of-big-deficit-spending/

Note 12: Tom Coburg, The Canary, 15 November 2021: https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2021/11/15/the-evidence-that-shows-tory-party-corruption-is-not-only-rife-but-endemic/

Note 13: Seth Thevoz and Peter Geoghegan, openDemocracy, 5 November 2019: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/revealed-russian-donors-have-stepped-tory-funding/

Note 14: Tom Head, The London Economic, 3 September 2023: https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/which-schools-closed-concrete-scandal-michael-gove-rebuilding-plans-356188/

Note 15: Macrotrends (UK GDP Growth Rate): https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/gdp-growth-rate

Note 16: Office for Budget Responsibility, March 2021: https://obr.uk/box/international-comparisons-of-the-economic-impact-of-the-pandemic/

Note 17: Veena Raleigh, The King’s Fund, 10 November 2021: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2021/11/covid-19-uk-health-care-performance

Note 18: House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts report – ‘Local Government Finance System: Overview and Challenges’, 2 February 2022: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/8682/documents/88208/default/#:~:text=From%202010%E2%80%9311%20to%202019,more%20by%20charging%20for%20services

Note 19: John Harris, ‘One by one, England’s councils are going bankrupt – and nobody in Westminster wants to talk about it’, The Guardian, 14 January 2024:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/14/englands-councils-bankrupt-westminster

Note 20: Russell Hargrave, ‘More than 1,000 infrastructure charities have closed since 2010, research finds’, Third Sector, 3 March 2023: https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/1000-infrastructure-charities-closed-2010-research-finds/management/article/1815110

Advancement of Learning: 5 key phases

How we improve the way we learn is vital to every aspect of life. If we accept everything without question, ignorance and mistakes will never be removed. If we reject ideas arbitrarily, we are just as likely to be mired in confusion and errors. For thousands of years, it was down to the ad hoc discovery or invention of the odd individuals, in those rare moments that such new thinking was not crushed by prevailing conventions or thoughtless leaders, that human knowledge was enhanced.

However, a momentous turning point in history came in 1605 when Francis Bacon published The Advancement of Learning, which put forward a new systematic approach to guide how we learn. It has three notable components: 

·      Learning should be supported as a cooperative and objective enterprise. Everyone with relevant ideas and evidence should be allowed to contribute without undue interference from others.

·      Claims, ideas, beliefs etc should be subject to appropriate testing with the help of accumulating evidence, experiments, and scrutiny; and what is provisionally acceptable is revisable if warranted by further findings. 

·      The quest for better understanding requires constant vigilance in the detection and exposure of fallacies, prejudices, deception, and dogmas. No claim can be asserted as immune from critical appraisal.

Through the 17^th century, the influence of these Baconian ideas grew in relation to natural philosophy (what would come to be called the physical sciences), cumulating in the establishment of the Royal Society, whose members such as Boyle, Hooke, and Newton, demonstrated how we could get to learn more about the world through open, empirical research rather than relying on ‘sacred’ texts or ancient sages.

In the second phase in the 18^th century, thinkers across Europe extended the approach to virtually every issue worthy of study – history, the laws, religion, morals, customs, society, economics, art, government – nurturing the Enlightenment ethos of learning by critical questioning, cooperative research, evidence seeking, and the presentation of new ideas not as eternal truths, but as the latest findings to guide us until/unless a more robust alternative is discovered (an approach encapsulated in the notion of a ‘fair trial’ with its emphasis on evidence, coherence and room for appeal).

In the third phase in the 19^th century, utilitarian-minded reformists began to examine the institutional arrangements for carrying out this approach to learning. In all areas where questions could be raised about the acceptability of a given claim, belief or judgement, how an institution was structured and operated could determine if those questions were dealt with in the experimental cooperative manner. This drove reforms that steered institutions – law courts, universities, the legislature, public health bodies, businesses, etc. – to check for unsubstantiated assumptions and adopt procedures to facilitate the assessment of what should or should not be accepted as correct in their respective work.

In the fourth phase, which came in the first half of the 20^th century, there was recognition that institutional reforms themselves were limited by wider societal factors such as public policies, power inequalities, and resource availability, and government action was needed to overcome a range of barriers and threats to cooperative learning. Progressive governments discovered how important it was to safeguard learning in the face of economic turmoil, the rise of fascist and communist oppression, the outbreaks of wars – by developing stronger democratic systems to protect their citizens and enable them to decide how to improve their wellbeing.

By late 20^th century, we entered the fifth phase with the growing realisation that forces inimical to cooperation were gathering strength to overturn the approach of cooperative learning. These enemies of learning used a mix of tactics – attacks on scientific expertise, defence of traditional dogmas, celebration of prejudices, spreading of lies and misinformation, promoting irrational claims, undermining learning as ‘elitist’ – to dupe people into rejecting evidence-based findings and embracing instead the deceitful agenda they offer. They were challenged by communitarians, civic republicans, and deliberative democrats, who made their case for more effective communication and education to raise our understanding and utilisation of cooperative learning. However, by early 21^stcentury, efforts to sustain the advancement of learning are becoming overshadowed by the rallying of right-wing ‘populists’ in weaponising fallacies and lies. 

Will there be a sixth phase when the culture of cooperative learning triumphs over the champions of deception?  Or are we slipping down the insidious slope that returns us to the dark ages of dogmas and ignorance?  It is down to us to take a stand.

To Lead or Not to Lead

Leadership, as much as love, preoccupied Shakespeare in his dramatic writings – most probably because the precarious state of Protestant England desperately needed good leadership to keep it safe from military attacks from abroad, and civil strife at home.

Interestingly, Shakespeare did not romanticise leadership as some wondrous quality of an idealised character. Instead, he drew from historical accounts of who had led well and who poorly, and developed an instructive conception of what would make a leader we should follow (and what should ring alarm bells).

Let us start with the negative things we should look out for.  For Shakespeare, the key problem is character weakness – the inability to hold true to what one has good reasons to commit oneself to. Lear might have been a good leader once, but with age, he became prone to losing his temper, falling for flattery, and handing over power to those who were the last people he should trust.  Othello was widely recognised as a noble and effective military leader, yet his susceptibility to jealousy opened him to easy deception by Iago, and he was all too ready to condemn Desdemona to death without checking out accusations with due attention. Macbeth was a loyal, respected warrior until obsessive ambition turned him into a usurper of the throne and murderer of children.

More illustrations are to be found with Hamlet, whose indecisiveness over what he should do for the sake of his family and country meant all was lost in the end; with Brutus, whose naïve reluctance to deal resolutely with Caesar’s supporter, Antony, as he did with Caesar himself, resulted in his failure to save the Roman republic; and Coriolanus, whose arrogance in thinking it beneath him to seek to engage the hearts and minds of the people in securing political power led to his humiliating downfall.

By contrast, good leadership is exemplified by a steadfastness in judging matters judiciously, forming plans with a careful understanding of what others are thinking, and executing them with resolve.  Look at how Octavius was presented in Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra – calmly, quietly, he plotted his course to form tactical alliances and corner enemies. Ever focused on securing the support he needed to move towards his goal, he was the master of his emotions, never the other way round. Similarly, Prince Hal showed that to be serious in becoming a good leader as he ascended the throne as Henry V, he jettisoned his youthful rowdy sentiments and committed to exercising his duties with unwavering dedication.  Importantly, for both Hal and Octavius, they did not hesitate to part ways from people who were once close to them but could no longer be trusted (in the case of Falstaff and Antony respectively).

Good leadership is not just a matter for kings and emperors either. Portia is undoubtedly the most impressive character in The Merchant of Venice for her composure, clear thinking, and ability to take charge of the most challenging situations. Whether it was dealing with the suitors to her (and her inherited fortune), providing a haven to an eloping couple, or using her legal skills to save the life of the seemingly doomed merchant, Portia would navigate her way forward in a calm and informed manner, even as others felt there was no hope.

Under very different circumstances, Rosalind – in As You Like It – was banished with nothing but her wits to live on, and as she ventured into a land of strangers, swiftly took charge of every tricky situation that arose. Her ability to inspire confidence, to manage other people’s misunderstanding, and to bring about satisfactory outcomes renders her a natural leader others will follow. But lest we think it is charm and humour that hold the key, we should remember Paulina from The Winter’s Tale. She saw through the king’s absurd accusation against the queen, resolutely stood up for her, and guided the king through years of penance back to a possible reconciliation. Dour and firm, Paulina was another exemplar of leadership as determination informed by evidential assessment.

To lead well – Shakespeare tells us – keep in mind the concerns of others as well as those of one’s own, do not let emotions run wild, shun fears and temptations, check serious claims scrupulously, focus on the desirable outcomes, and act with clear resolve. 

Prithee render these essential requirements for every politician and CEO.