Reminding Traditionalists of Progressive Traditions

Must communities always be caught between deference to traditions and concern for progress?

Anti-liberal traditionalists and anti-communitarian progressives have this in common – they both assume that communities are bound tightly by their own traditions, and respect for tradition is incompatible with any progressive change.  And they are both mistaken.

 

Let us start with one basic and important fact – traditions evolve over time.  What is taken as the way that has become customary for a community to behave in one period, will transform in the years and decades to come.  Some changes may be small, but others can be drastic.  Practices which may be new at one stage can become traditional later. Attitudes that are prevalent for some time may come to be mocked and discarded as time passes.

 

All such changes can happen as a result of one or more of four types of community interaction. Firstly, it may be part of a prevailing tradition to ask questions, reflect on certain issues, clear up some contradictions so as to enrich that tradition.  Secondly, followers of the tradition may want to refine it or adapt it in the light of new experiences – since what was cited as various beliefs and practices in the context of specific situations in the past, may be confronted by quite different circumstances that are not covered by previous pronouncements.  Thirdly, few communities have just one distinct, monolithic tradition, and many find that as new traditions emerge, conflicts between different traditions drive new thinking to reconcile those differences (e.g., religious sects, customs of diverse villages/clans).  Fourthly, adherence to some aspects of a tradition may simply fade because the latest generation lose interest in it, or feel there are more important things to hold their attention. 

 

Anti-liberal traditionalists are wrong to think traditions are locked in a time capsule, and communities embracing progressive change must lose their social mooring and drift into moral chaos.  Anti-communitarian progressives are mistaken in assuming that progress can never come from prevailing thoughts and practices, and only the invocation of some absolute principles transcending all communities and traditions can possibly support progressive reforms.

 

In every culture, every society today, progressive traditions can be found alongside more static traditional outlooks.  The progressive aspects of these critical improvement-seeking traditions have grown out of community interactions within the framework of a plurality of traditions. Ideas from the past do not imprison communities into an unchanging form.  They contain the germs that lead to new ways of thinking and social arrangements, and new traditions that promote progressive change.

Learning from the Civic Cooperators

Since the turn of the century, the disillusionment with conventional politics has intensified, leaving many people to either give up on democratic processes as irrelevant, or put their faith in irresponsible leaders and policies that turn out to be highly damaging for their country.

Yet as political strategists and commentators ponder what can be done differently, they continue to overlook one of the most important trends unfolding before them. From 2000s on, a growing number of practitioners, theorists, and organisations have been demonstrating how improvements to people’s quality of life can be achieved through the development of cooperative relations in and across social, economic, and political institutions.

These civic cooperators draw from the insights and practices of community development, community learning, cooperative enterprise, time banking, deliberative engagement, participatory budgeting, co-production, restorative justice, community empowerment, etc to advance a holistic approach that enables people to work effectively together to solve the problems they face.  The impact – at different levels (local, national, global) and in different sectors (private, public, voluntary) – has been substantial, both in terms of improved quality of life and a greater sense of efficacy as citizens who matter. 

Too often politicians have neglected the vast potential of communities (based in a neighbourhood, a workplace, or a shared network) to drive positive change.  Some overload them with top-down targets and controls, others leave them to flounder with neither support nor guidance.  By contrast, civic cooperators recognise that substantial evidence has shown that in order to engender the cooperative working to formulate and attain shared objectives, we need to facilitate three kinds of inter-related development.  These are:

[1] The Nurturing of Mutual Responsibility

Civic cooperators are keenly aware that leaving people to do whatever they want could end up with some being free to hurt others.  But merely invoking a list of rights and wrongs is not an adequate solution either.  Instead, through community learning, outreach, familiarisation, perspectives-sharing, the importance of mutual responsibility is to be inculcated.  Those involved may then come to see that the respect and concern they can expect from others are inextricably linked to the respect and concern they show others.  The unacceptability of discrimination and abusiveness is reinforced through relationship-building, while a sense of togetherness is built by the identification of shared interests and common objectives.

[2] The Support for Cooperative Enquiry

In parallel with coming to acquire shared concerns, any group of people seeking to address those concerns will also need to be able to reach agreement as to what are credible facts and ideas to rely on.  Civic cooperators acknowledge that neither imposing some unquestionable authority nor leaving everyone to arbitrarily accept/reject any view they please can provide a way forward.  Their answer is to give sustained support to cooperative enquiry – a much tried and tested mode of objective exploration of claims, evidence, theories, etc through transparent processes of collaborative exchange and learning, structured adjudication with built-in capacity for re-examination, and protection from manipulative distortion and groundless claims.

[3] The Promotion of Citizen Participation

The third development is to help people participate in shaping the decisions that will affect them.  The mechanisms can vary from direct voting, through engaging in deliberations in formulating policy options, to entrusting someone who will make and account for the decision taken.  What civic cooperators focus on is to ensure that the most effective means for obtaining a meaningful input are adopted in different circumstances, and that the conditions necessary for those means to be utilised fully are as well met as possible. This can involve devising participatory arrangements, organising feedback, pressing for accountability, exposing corrupt influence, instigating regulatory safeguards, and curtailing unequal power distribution.

Civic cooperators have in many parts of the world taken forward the development outlined above through the provision of advice, organisational support, and collaboration with private and public sector backers.  Political leaders should view them not as disruptive usurpers or passive agents, but as vital partners who can energise democratic working in society and enable citizens to have a positive role in improving their lives.

--

You can find out more about the ideas and practices of civic cooperators in the book, Tomorrow’s Communities: lessons for community-based transformation in the age of global crises: https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/tomorrows-communities

You may also want to explore the work of Citizen Network: https://citizen-network.org

What is Conservatism?

There is an endless supply of articles and books about the ideas and doctrines that might have shaped the politics of those who embrace Conservatism (in the sense that encompasses Conservatives in the UK and Canada, Republicans in the US, the Liberal Party in Australia, and the National Party in New Zealand). But while the works of Burke, Oakeshott, Hayek, and Scruton may provide some post-hoc rationalisation here and there, Conservative politics has never been about theoretical doctrines, but is above all a strategic agenda for defending and expanding power advantages in society.

If we look closely at what the political leadership of parties aligned with Conservatism has sought over time and in different countries, the one common feature that stands out is the focus on securing public office to help entrench arrangements that will continue to safeguard the greater wealth, status, privileges of those in dominant positions in society.  And so long as a group can gain that dominance, their interests will become paramount for the champions of Conservatism – remember how 18^thcentury Tories looked down on merchants and manufacturers but held them in high esteem in the 20^thcentury.

Correspondingly, what Conservatism stands against is any political idea, campaign, movement, or party that may challenge that dominance.  It does not matter what the reason is behind that challenge – the opposition to inequalities, concern for the environment, liberation from oppressive customs, the fight against poverty, objection to corrupt practices – so long as it poses a threat to the advantages possessed by the dominant ones, it will be a target for Conservatives to discredit and defeat.

Conservatism is not inherently kind or nasty.  Where showing kindness can promote gratitude and contentment amongst those who might otherwise start supporting their political rivals, kindness may be readily bestowed – so long as it does not undermine the overall power structure of society and the ‘have plenty’ can stay well above the ‘have little’.  Nastiness, similarly, could be brought into play if it would help to win political battles.  Stirring up prejudices against foreigners and minorities is one of the oldest tricks.  Blaming the poor for their own predicament is another favourite.  Fuelling ‘culture wars’ is a natural extension of the familiar divide-and-rule tactic.

 

Writers seeking philosophical doctrines or political theories that supposedly define (or ought to define) Conservatism may find it a diverting pastime. But ultimately, while some Conservative politicians may genuinely appreciate the intellectual respectability that such talk may confer, Conservatism is best understood as the relentless manoeuvring to protect and strengthen hierarchies and practices that serve those who have gained the most from them.

Learning to Question

When we have claims or proposals put to us, it matters if we accept them on good grounds or not.  And to establish their acceptability, we need to question them properly.  The problem is that questioning, if done arbitrarily, is no better than blind acceptance or kneejerk rejection.

Our response to a police investigation, a proposed medical treatment, a politician’s claim, or a report on economic trends, can have significant consequences for ourselves and others.  So how should we go about questioning them when no one can possibly possess the expertise to assess the myriad factors involved.

 

One thing that all citizens should learn, beyond the areas they have acquired specialist understanding about, is how to gauge the reliability of assertions when they do not possess the relevant expert knowledge themselves.  This would broadly encompass three areas of general assessment each with three tests to be applied: 

 

Structure of Content

[1] Clarity

Is what is said sufficiently clear?  Do we really know what we are being asked to give our backing to?  Is it actually fully of pseudo-profundity?  What is the substance beneath the rhetoric?

 

[2] Coherence

Does it make sense?  Does it in fact contain contradictory elements which leave it with no coherent assertion?  Can it be rephrased to that what it claims or demands is unambiguously set out?

 

[3] Correctability

Is it a circular statement in disguise?  Does it beg the question by offering, not an answer, but simply an assumption that the question has already been settled?  Is it framed in such a way that no evidence can count as disproving it?

 

These tests can reveal if any claim is ultimately vacuous, or if it has real content that one can consider with the help of other assessments.

 

State of Mind

[4] Deceitful

Are the people making the claim known for their honesty or deceitfulness?  Are they more prone to lie and misdirect to gain advantage for themselves at the expense of others? Are they accusing others with contrary views of being deceitful when past fact-checking would undermine that stance?

 

[5] Delusional

Are there signs that the people in question are susceptible to imagining what is not there? Are they known for sincerely believing what is overwhelmingly contradicted by the evidence?  

 

[6] In Denial

Have the people invested so heavily in a set of beliefs that they cannot bear to face up to the fact that those beliefs are unfounded?  Do they react in frustration and anger if any fact or argument is cited that goes against those beliefs?

 

These tests can reveal if any claim should be taken seriously, or if it should be treated with caution because of its unreliable source.

 

Standard of Reasoning

[7] Expertise in Assessment

What relevant expertise is possessed by the people making the claim? If they do not have the requisite expertise, are they drawing on what is set out by experts with an established record in the field in question?

 

[8] Evaluation System Robustness

Are there evaluation systems in place – peer reviews, watchdog, investigative reporting, audit arrangements, further research, appeal processes, etc – that can check on the robustness of the claims under consideration? Are those systems respected and operating well in the given case?  Or has the claim been made in a free-for-all forum with no independent evaluation at all?

 

[9] Evidential Support 

Is the claim backed by evidence?  How does that compare with the evidence that may support what goes against that claim? Is the evidence subject to examination? Is it open for further evidence to be obtained?

 

These tests can reveal if any claim has a high or low degree of reasonable support based on current levels of expertise and findings.  Together with the other tests mentioned above, they should be applied to claims and assertions that are put to us, especially in politics where our subsequent action (or inaction) can have major consequences for our lives.

Insanity, Terrorism, & Callous Endangerment

Does it make sense to divide people who are disposed to cause callous endangerment to others, into the distinct categories of ‘insane’ and ‘terrorist’?  We are talking about people who are prepared to end other people’s lives regardless of the arguments that go against such a course of action.  They simply shut out any objective information which shows that those they endanger ought not to be so treated.  Their empathy and reasoning have been short-circuited.

 

There is a significant overlap between the those who threaten others as a result of their coming to imagine that the murder of certain innocent people is desirable, and those who threaten others as a result of their embracing some doctrine that declares that the murder of certain innocent people is desirable?  Why should we classify a person as insane if he insists that he must kill because a voice in his head tells him to, but classify a person as a terrorist if he insists that he must kill because his God commands him to? There is no coherent basis for regarding the motive to sacrifice others for the glory of a mighty deity as a terrorist ideology, but the motive to sacrifice others for the sake of appeasing a merciless devil as a mentally disturbing fantasy.  In both cases – unless one accepts the absurd premise as a rational one – any person acting on it has to be considered as dangerously deranged.

 

Subjective intent is not relevant either.  A person acting out some deadly fantasy may think he is saving people from a corrupt world by locking them in a burning building.  Another person may think he is following the teachings of a holy figure by ending the mortal lives of a group of people he has recruited so that they can attain eternal joy more swiftly.  It is the objective harm such people can bring that must be anticipated and prevented. 

 

What about the ‘lone wolf’/‘loyal soldier’ distinction?  If the issue is the scale of operation needed to tackle the threat, then an individual acting on his own with no connection to any wider network might be easier to stop than an organisation with many members involved in multiple plots.  But depending on the weapons and the targets of attacks, one individual could in some situation pose a greater threat than a group of people.  It should also be noted that ideas that feed callous endangerment do not necessarily follow direct command structures.  Ideas that promote blind hatred and remorseless violence can encourage individuals with no formal links to organisations propagating these ideas, to vent their anger and hurt others.

 

The insanity/terrorism demarcation seems to imply that while the former is an illness that should be dealt with through psychiatric treatment, the latter is carried out on the basis of a rational commitment.  In other words, if someone commits an apparent terrorist act because of his insanity, then he is not really a terrorist.  But we understand that many who are manipulated into carrying out terrorist acts are radicalised into embracing notions that they would otherwise have rejected. Indeed, there cannot be many simpler tests of a mind’s soundness than to check its readiness to terminate the lives of innocent people [Note 1].  The extent to which the propensity for callously endangering others can be cured (deradicalised, or de-cultified) will vary in different cases.  What is needed is a unified system to identify, assess, counter, contain, and treat (if that is an option) anyone who exhibits such propensity.

 

--

Note 1: One can legitimately debate if, for example, shutting off one section of a submarine knowing that would lead to ten people being trapped behind and drowning, when it is necessary to save the whole boat from sinking and killing the entire crew of sixty on board.  However, the losing lives/saving lives issue does not apply when the ‘benefit’ invoked to justify the loss of lives only exists in the mind of the killer.

The Basis for Developing Communities

Community development has a key role to play in bringing about more inclusive and cooperative communities.  However, it is often overlooked and underfunded.  One underlying problem is that commentators, policy makers, and the general public do not readily see what basis there is for changing societal structures and relations in line with community development practice.  This can be rectified through four strands of activity: 

Making the Argument

Political discussions cover many views about what communities should be like.  At one end of the spectrum there is the individualistic conception of community as a loose collection of people who look to their own interests, and rely primarily on the market and charities to deal with unmet needs. At the other end there is the hierarchical model wherein dominant groups will determine the ‘traditional’ rules and customs everyone else should have to follow.  In between these conceptions, the case for what community development aims to achieve needs to be made.  Cogent arguments should be put forward for nurturing social relations in the direction of mutual respect and thoughtful cooperation.  

(For example, see: Communitarianism: a new agenda for politics and citizenship ; and The Evolution of Communitarian Ideas )

 

Raising Awareness 

By its very nature, community development requires people to play an informed role in shaping their communities, and this will not happen if people think it is some marginal process that has little to do with them. All too often, people have insufficient understanding of how wider policies and practices may impact upon them, or worse, they are misled into supporting what are in fact damaging for them. We should raise public awareness through a variety of means - lifelong learning, satirical literature, social marketing, imaginative campaigns – to stimulate interest in questioning prevailing societal arrangements, and exploring alternatives for bringing about more satisfactory outcomes in terms of fairness, contentment, progress and sustainability.

(For example, see: The Anti-Con Novels;  

‘Kuan’s Wonderland: a novel exploration of inequality’ ; and the group learning resource, What Should Citizens Believe )

 

Improving Community Engagement

The degree to which members of any community can influence the key activities affecting that community is down to the effectiveness of engagement arrangements put in place.  Large groups of people, with diverse ideas and concerns, constrained by the time and resources they have, are unlikely to be able to deliberate and arrive at informed views about what is to be done for their common good – unless they are supported by the most appropriate community engagement practices in resolving their differences and exploring shared objectives.  We should ensure lessons from what works (and what does not) in the design and implementation of community engagement are taken on board in giving people a meaningful say about collective decisions that affect them.

(For example, see: ‘Together We Can: a resource guide’ ; ‘Cooperative Problem-Solving: the key to a reciprocal society' ; and Tomorrow’s Communities: lessons for community-based transformation in the age of global crises )

 

Tackling Inequalities

Inequalities have a major impact on how individual citizens can participate in exerting collective influence.  Those with more power in terms of wealth, status, and connections can push their preferences with no regard for what others might think, while many others, as a result of their socio-economic, physical, and/or cultural predicament, possess little power to make their concerns count.  It is essential to curtail the concentration of power in those who can increasingly dictate terms to others without being held to account, and to improve the conditions for those who are held back by the disadvantages they have had to endure.

(For example, see: Against Power Inequalities ; and Time to Save Democracy )

 

State Expectations: contrasting left and right

At their extremes, what ‘left’ and ‘right’ designate can border on the indistinguishable. The authoritarians who want to rule without constraint in the name of the people, and the authoritarians who want absolute control for the sake of the nation, are as oppressive and unaccountable as each other.  On the other hand, the anarchist left and libertarian right both want to do away with being monitored and regulated by government.  Neither want to be told what to do by others – whatever the consequence.

So, are the labels of left and right redundant?  Well, for the majority of people who don’t subscribe to extreme views, what they generally think their government should do (or not) – their ‘State Expectations’, if you like, goes some way to characterise their political dispositions as Left or Right.

Let us look at five sets of issues and consider how those on the Left and Right are likely to respond to them in terms of the role they feel government institutions should play: 

 

People disadvantaged by particular conditions

The issues: people are disadvantaged by poverty, their isolated location, their disability or fragile health, or the discrimination they face as a result of their gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, customs, or religion.

Left: The government should protect people from the consequences of being so disadvantaged, and help them secure equal respect and adequate support in overcoming the disadvantages in question as much as possible.

Right: The government should leave these people to sort out their own problem. It is down to them to make a living for themselves, and to fit in with how others are inclined to interact with them.

 

Threats posed by corporate practices

The issues: many corporations enhance our social and economic wellbeing, but some pose a threat in the way they mistreat employees and suppliers, promote and sell unsafe products, or harm the environment.

Left: The government should support the business sector to develop responsibly and bring in appropriate regulation to deal with those which might otherwise hurt others for their own gain.

Right: The government should leave businesses to make their own decisions and deal with the consequences themselves.  Government intervention will more often than not end up damaging the business sector.

 

Foreign relations

The issues: concerns are raised when the governments of other countries engage in activities that may be at odds with our country’s own interests; any increase in the number of immigrants and refugees may lead to tension in some areas; and foreign religious ideas may clash with our prevailing culture.

Left: The government should differentiate between what ought to be welcome and what needs to be guarded against, and act accordingly.  It should tackle real threats but also ensure that what are harmless or indeed beneficial should not be opposed.

Right: The government should be wary of foreign influences – be these commercial or military problems posed by those in another country, or instability fuelled by immigrants and refugees, and their alien customs and beliefs. The government should take a tough stance in curtailing any form of foreign intrusion into our way of life.

 

Standards in quality of life

The issues: People want access to decent health service, housing, transport, dependable utilities, protection from crime and pollution, and good education for their children. But these are not always readily available.

Left: The government should ensure sufficient resources are invested in providing and improving vital services so that everyone can have a minimally acceptable quality of life.

Right: The government should cut taxes so that businesses and individuals can thrive and look after themselves.  The less the government is involved in public services, the better it is for everyone.

 

Control over individual behaviour

The issues: No one can have the absolute freedom to behave irrespective of the impact on others.  From taking others’ property, injuring them physically, to causing emotional distress, or driving recklessly, there must be limits to individual behaviour.

Left: The government should identify unacceptable behaviour – based on the likely harm it would cause – and introduce policies that will be strictly enforced to minimise its occurrence.  The measures to be deployed – fines, incarceration, restitution, rehabilitation, treatment – are to be guided by what-works evidence.

Right: The government should do as little as possible about people smoking, drinking, spreading a dangerous virus (through not wearing a mask), speaking as they wish about minorities, or [in the US] buying guns. But the government should use as much force as possible to tackle thieves or drug users, do more to stop abortions, and [in the US] be prepared to sentence people with mental disability to death.

 

In conclusion

On the whole, people’s State Expectations point to their Left/Right orientation.  Those who would like to have a responsible government that will support people in attaining a better quality of life – especially those who are disadvantaged by factors beyond their personal control – lean left.  Those who would prefer to have a tough government that will on the one hand be inclined to use force in dealing with foreign powers and resort to severe punishment for criminals, and on the other, be resolute in not interfering with inequalities, business practices, or individual behaviour that is ‘traditional’ – lean right.

Abusivism: the politization of nastiness

In politics, ‘isms’ used to consist of doctrines setting out why and how society should be steered towards a better future.  People backed or opposed particular political parties because they broadly subscribed to those doctrines.  Sometimes, when circumstances change, people might come to lose confidence in a given doctrine (e.g., when it turns out that lowering taxes repeatedly do not lead to the creation of well-paid jobs; or extending prison sentences in general does not reduce crime rates).  But the clash of isms was on the whole based on disputes over ideas, which were subject to challenges from reasoned analysis and objective evidence.

One of the most disturbing development at the dawn of the 21^stcentury was the displacement of political ideas by the politization of nastiness.  Abusivist (to coin a term) politicians began to present their wild rants as ‘plain speaking’.  They style themselves as ‘ordinary folk’ who dare to talk back to ‘the establishment’. They despise reason, experts, evidence, compassion, empathy – for all they care about is what they ‘know’ to be the ‘truth’, and that ‘truth’ amounts to nothing but abusive attacks on any vulnerable group they feel like picking on.  

 

The targets of their groundless vitriol share one core characteristic – their plight stokes a twisted sense of self-righteous validation in people who, unsurprisingly, admire the ‘no nonsense’ aggressiveness of abusivist politicians. In general, anyone with a modicum of empathy wants to see help given to victims of domestic violence, immigrants desperate for a better life; refugees escaping from wars and chaos; people disadvantaged by their disability or poverty (or both); or individuals harassed and discriminated against as a result of their religion, race, gender or sexuality.  By contrast, followers of abusivist politicians get angry when they learn of these people getting help, and they want to retaliate – which their leaders promise to deliver for them in the form of laws and policies that not only cut any help provided, but would make vulnerable people’s lives even harder, especially through propaganda that misrepresents them as liars and threats.

 

Abusivism does not pretend to operate through reason, and it does not attempt to be civil. It labels as enemies those least able to defend themselves and proceed to attack them – both by promoting distrust and hatred against them, and by using the power of the state wherever possible to hurt them.  It dismisses people who care as ‘do-gooders’, ‘politically correct’, and despairingly ‘woke’. It rallies its supporters to obstruct and intimidate them in the name of some ‘culture war’.   

 

Theresa May once warned about the Conservatives becoming the Nasty Party, but when she had the power to chart a new course, she introduced the ‘Hostile Environment’ policy to drive immigrants away. In the end, she merely paved the way for Boris Johnson, whose casual abusivism has been a defining feature of his career.  In the US, Donald Trump has dedicated himself to reducing the Republican Party to nothing but the Nasty Party.  Not all conservative politicians go along with abusivist politics.  But if they want to save their party’s soul, they had better take action soon to pull it back from the brink.

Community Development & the Struggle Against Powerlessness

For people who have been extensively involved in community development, it is no doubt an approach that can empower communities to improve their lives.  However, for others who know little about it, it conjures up images of residents complaining about their areas and delaying projects that were meant to benefit them.  This knowledge gap, one might think, would have been closed by the impact community development work has achieved over time.  Unfortunately, the majority of policy makers and funders still seem to have a complete blind spot when it comes to the value of helping communities build their collective influence.

An underlying problem is that public bodies, which should be welcoming and supporting community development, often view it as merely an instrument in aid of getting top-down targets met.  When those targets end up being questioned, the processes for attaining them are challenged, and alternative plans are sought, those in charge of setting and meeting their own organisational targets are not happy.  What they don’t realise is that the central issue here is power – the power of people living and working in various communities to deal with the problems they face.  Targets, objectives, outputs, etc. need to relate to communities’ experience.  Problem-solving must connect with people’s understanding of possible options.  If solutions and programmes are imposed on people without their informed involvement in shaping them, it exacerbates their powerlessness, and leaves them more disillusioned than ever with how things are organised around them.

 

To appreciate the real importance of community development, one should see it in the historical context of collective struggles against powerlessness.  The driving force has always been the refusal to accept an unpalatable state of affairs as unalterable.  From racist practices, appalling housing conditions, neighbourhood crime and disorder, to widespread poverty, diminishing employment prospects, and environmental degradation, whenever communities are galvanised into working together to formulate and press for better outcomes, community development takes another step forward.

 

Looking back, the closest community development came to be recognised by any government as a core discipline in empowering communities was when the Labour Government established the Civil Renewal Unit (CRU) in 2003 which went on to promote the community development ethos and the adoption of diverse engagement techniques across local and central government, in partnership with the community sector.  CRU established a network of Civic Pioneers to widen local authorities’ engagement with local people, a series of Take Part hubs to help people exert greater influence over public policies and services, and a group of Guide Neighbourhoods to facilitate peer-to-peer learning amongst communities in shaping local priorities and strategies.  It acted as the government sponsor of the Community Development Foundation, and ran national and regional ‘Together We Can’ awareness-raising campaigns to encourage collaborative working between community groups and statutory bodies.  It also invested in dissemination infrastructure to increase the take-up of practices such as participatory budgeting, neighbourhood plans, and community asset transfers.

 

Yet despite the impact of these activities in raising community confidence and satisfaction in a wide range of areas across the country, it was still all too easy for a different political regime to dismantle this structure when it took over from Labour in 2010.  Coordinated and long-term support for community development activities ceased, and the Community Development Foundation itself was closed down.  At one level, this might be regarded as myopic policy making – opting for short term cuts over more durable community improvement.  But at a deeper level, it reveals a callous disinterest in addressing the problem of powerlessness in society.  Shallow rhetoric about ‘Taking Back Control’ will not get us very far (or worse, it covers up even greater loss of power).  History tells a clear story – for the struggle to secure a fair share of power for all, we need sustained community development.

 

--

David Boyle has written an essay on the history of community development, which provides a decade-by-decade retracing of community development in the UK and US.

It can be accessed via Local Trust: https://localtrust.org.uk/insights/essays/a-history-of-community-development/

 

The Problem with History-Blind Judgements

Should individuals of an earlier era be criticised for holding certain views that in later times would come to be considered wrong?  There is a crucial difference between someone who believes in what the vast majority of people at that time routinely believe, and someone who refuses to question an idea when many have begun to cast doubt on its acceptability.

 

It’s understandable why someone living in the 10th century BC might assume the earth was flat, yet anyone holding such a view in the 21st century would arouse suspicion about their capacity for learning.  Similarly, we would not chastise a European cartographer whose 5th century map omitted the Americas, but we would not excuse a 19th century mapmaker who displayed a similar lack of knowledge.

 

Our judgement of people from the past ought to be based on how far ahead or behind they were in comparison with their contemporaries.  Furthermore, one could be ahead in many significant ways while lagging in some areas nonetheless.  Newton, for example, is rightly considered a great scientific thinker who led the world in advancing our understanding of many aspects of physics, even if he subscribed to a few spurious astrological ideas prevalent in the 17th century.

 

Unfortunately, when it comes to the social understanding of other people, it seems that the level of comprehension that has been attained here and now is used by many as the standard to judge the moral quality of people regardless of what historical period they actually lived in.

 

There were people who were cruel and callous by the prevailing standards of their times, and their attitudes and behaviour should be frowned upon. Instead of celebrating them as heroes, they should be seen as contemptible figures.  However, there were also many who had grown up with assumptions common in their times about others with a different ethnicity, nationality, gender, religion, or social status, and even though they might have gradually discarded some of those prejudices through critical reflections, they did not shake off every last one of them.  Should they be singled out as vile reprobates, or should we recognise that they had managed to move forward in some areas, and the direction of travel of their ethical thinking was towards the further elimination of prejudicial thought even if they had not got there completely?

 

In fact, can any of us say that we have got there ‘completely’ in terms of thinking appropriately about everything that matters in life?  As the 18th century Enlightenment taught us, the key is to keep learning, reviewing, discovering, so that we may move forward from mistaken assumptions of the past.  So long as we are making a real effort to improve, and encourage others to do likewise, we should not be faulted for not eradicating all errors in how we think – if indeed that is ever possible.

 

Ironically, many leading thinkers of the Enlightenment have been attacked for holding particular prejudiced views at some point in their lives even though overall they devoted themselves to combating bigotry and dogmas on numerous fronts.  The problem with history-blind judgements is that all too often they savage those who were seeking improvement, and divert attention from the incalcitrant reactionaries who genuinely deserve to be censured.

Lessons for Tomorrow’s Communities

We keep hearing that communities must become more collaborative and resilient in dealing with the problems they face.  Successive crises from the global credit crunch to the coronavirus pandemic have piled on the pressure, especially in areas where people are not accustomed to or supported in pulling together to respond to social and economic challenges.

Mere rhetoric won’t change anything.  No one should be under any illusion that political mantra about leaving ‘society’ to take responsibility for its own wellbeing while cutting back the state is little more than a code for letting people slide into greater insecurity and suffering.  

 

If communities are to take on a more influential role in the future, they need to be helped in their development, and that should be guided by informed views of what works and what does not in practice.  There are many important lessons to be learnt from the numerous cases of effective community-based transformation.  We can look at 12 key findings under three categories:

 

How to achieve transformation of socioeconomic relations in communities:

 

[1] Substantial improvements to economic health and social cohesion can be achieved by establishing the legal and financial framework for community-based organisations to develop their assets, facilities and services to respond to local concerns.

[2] Alternative mediums of exchange such as local currencies and time banking can promote an ethos of mutual support in otherwise fragmented communities, as well as increase the overall resources that are retained in the local economy.

[3] Raising the understanding and influence communities have in relation to regeneration initiatives that affect them, can help build an informed consensus on what to prioritise and how to maximise the impact of the available resources.

[4] The development of businesses that are owned and democratically controlled by local people who work in them can, with the help of platform technology, increase the quantity and quality of income-earning opportunities.

 

How to achieve transformation of collaborative behaviour with communities:

 

[5] The distrust and misunderstanding that undermine partnership working between government bodies and community groups can be significantly reduced through the use of inclusive dialogue techniques and shared objective-setting.

[6] Community learning, backed by trained facilitators, can help people explore the real causes of the problems they face, contribute to the formulation of viable solutions, and develop confidence in joint action.

[7] Structural changes to engagement practices that empower communities to get involved as equal partners can increase participation levels, and reduce the likelihood of delays and costly mistakes damaging public projects.

[8] Replacing rigid target-setting and inflexible monitoring by adaptive planning processes and responsive evaluation can help to avoid the wrong goals being pursued, and deliver outcomes that reflect changing needs and circumstances.

 

How to achieve transformation of policy outcomes by communities:

 

[9] The co-production of public services can be strengthened by incentivising service providers through a form of preventive infrastructure to seek input from communities to improve both the public satisfaction with and financial viability of their services.

[10] The adoption of the multi-stakeholder cooperative model can radically transform the health and social care sector to enable the people who provide care and those who need it to work out the optimal service provision.

[11] Tackling food insecurity and related social problems by integrating community interests and contributions into planning and management arrangements can secure more effective outcomes and enhanced dignity for the communities concerned.

[12] Environmental challenges can be better met when communities are actively involved in awareness raising, option evaluation and selection, and impact monitoring in matters such as neighbourhood designs, energy, transport and air quality.

 

Anyone interested in learning more will find detailed analyses and recommendations set out in the book, Tomorrow’s Communities: lessons for community-based transformation in the age of global crises: https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/tomorrows-communities

Can Rights Go Wrong?

Invoking rights to champion a cause is a popular approach because it strikes a firm tone – declaring that the rights in question must be respected unconditionally.  To assert a right is to be like a judge banging the gavel – it is the end of discussion.  Case closed, except of course it isn’t.

 

Rights are not metaphysical entities that a few bright Platonic minds can grasp and anyone not recognising them have only got their intellectual limitations to blame.  They are signifiers of legal, political, and/or moral agreement that prevails in a given society.  Claims such as ‘no one in this country should be tortured’, or ‘every citizen should be supported in overcoming poor health’, may have varying degrees of moral backing amongst the general public, embedded in the political culture in some nation but not others, and translated into legal commitments with different specific implications.

 

If the basis for determining rights is ignored, then the invocation if rights can easily become an arbitrary exercise.  Once we discard as irrelevant what legal, political, or moral consensus there actually is, then ‘rights’ cease to be anchored to social reality.  Different people can insist they have a right to this or that, and interpret what they can expect from having that right in any way they wish without reference to any process or arrangement that exists outside their own mind.

 

Many people who use the language of rights in aid of compassion, justice, or fairness are suspicious of demands to unpack the basis of the rights they claim.  They think their case might get diluted if they engage with what agreement there really is in terms of current legal, political, and moral expectations.  They want to block off any challenge by hoisting the banner of ‘rights’.  

 

But if that is the position they want to keep to, it also opens the door for other people (who care little for compassion, justice, or fairness) to invoke rights in a similarly absolutist way.  These people will firmly claim, for example, that they have a right to hire and fire workers without any intervention from anyone else; they have a right to say what they like even if others regard it as spreading lies and hatred; they have a right to do business in any way they wish irrespective of the concerns of ‘do-gooders’; they have a right to live in a neighbourhood of their own ‘kind’; or they have a right to treat their own children as they see fit no matter how vile or cruel others may consider that treatment.

 

Ultimately, rights are not absolute licences that can be plucked out of metaphysical thin air and deployed to secure whatever someone wants.  Rights have to be justified, their implications have to be assessed, and what is to be granted as entitlements needs to be formulated with care.  To differentiate rights that ought to be safeguarded from rights that are asserted without legitimate foundations, we have to go beyond the surface language of rights and consider the legal, political, and moral positions that exist in society.  Rather than holding up ‘rights’ as some immutable shield against critical discussions, we should recognise the reality in which we need to persuade, challenge, campaign for the changing of attitudes and arrangements to further what we can obtain wider agreement in advancing the values we share.

3 Types of Con Supporters

To understand why Con politics thrives and how it can be countered, we should take a closer look at what type of supporters are behind it.

First and foremost, we have the Con leaders – people whose political career rests on tricking people into helping them secure power even though it would actually be detrimental to the unwitting helpers.  They have no compunction about cheating and lying, and are prone to falsely accuse honest politicians of cheating and lying.  They just want power to advance their self-centred ambitions – to enrich themselves, to celebrate their prejudices, and/or to intimidate anyone they like to designate as ‘enemies’ at home or abroad.  Anyone with the expertise and tenacity to expose their scam would be condemned by them as biased members of the ‘liberal establishment’.

 

Secondly, we have the Con enthusiasts – people who are highly susceptible to embracing the ‘values’ espoused by Con leaders: for example, the freedom to make money regardless of any harmful consequences for others; the importance of adhering to ‘traditional’ attitudes and practices no matter how oppressive they may be; and the adoration of the use of force irrespective of its efficacy or justification.  They don’t mind how their Con leaders abuse and exploit others so long as that leadership validates any abusive and exploitative behaviour they may indulge in themselves.

 

Thirdly, we have the Con fodder – people who do not actually share the core outlook of the Con leaders, but without adequate support or protection, are just too easily conned into believing Con spiel about how life would be made safer and more prosperous for all under leaders who routinely act against the advice of experts and the warnings of impartial observers. They want to live in a kinder and fairer society, but all too often fall prey to Con tricks which disparage sound political positions and present highly damaging policies as essential for the ‘good’ of the country (when in truth, the only beneficiaries are the Con leaders and their associates).

 

One strategy for countering the spread of Con politics is to enable potential Con fodder to see through the skulduggery of Con leaders.  There is, after all, a clear pattern to the tactics of charlatans who over and over again will push something they want against the wishes and judgement of everyone else, and they will self-righteously declare the vast majority of scientists, businesses, analysts, reporters, community organisations, health and security experts, and anyone else with the relevant experience as all wrong-headed or untrustworthy.  

Expose them repeatedly and thoroughly, call them out as liars whenever they embark on another round of deception, and in time, enough support will drain from them to render them less of a threat to our common wellbeing.

The Hobhouse Challenge

The writings of L. T. Hobhouse (1864-1929) pose a far-reaching challenge to many social and political ideas which were at once influential and questionable.  Regrettably, quite a few of these ideas are still circulating today because, in part, Hobhouse has fallen out of academic fashion.  Instead of pointing to new ways of thinking, his arguments have been largely ignored.  But let’s look back on some of his key contributions and reconnect with their implications for contemporary debates.

 

To begin with, in works such as The Theory of Knowledge and The Rational Good, Hobhouse confronted the damaging dichotomy that insists we must either find some absolute belief system that no one can conceivably reject, or accept that there is no objective basis for identifying any particular claim as true.  Hobhouse argued that hypotheses, experiments, observations, gathered evidence, would cohere around particular interpretations or clash with each other.  If the former, increasing harmony of those elements would add to the reliability of the claim in question.  If the latter, the clashing would suggest that further examination is required.  Knowledge is thus obtainable, if provisional.  We do not have to act as though any claim (theory, report, judgement) is ‘as good as’ any other.  But we must remain open-minded about future revisions when new ideas and evidence emerge.

 

With an objective epistemological basis established, Hobhouse challenged the pseudo-Darwinian ideas that supposed ‘survival of the fittest’ meant that any form of life coming through evolutionary changes must be ‘superior’ to what existed before.  He remarked that in biological terms, different living things emerged through evolution, and while they had diverse habitats and behavioural patterns, none could be said to be inherently ‘superior’ to any other.  Furthermore, if ‘superior’ is to be taken in moral terms, then a theory of value is needed to distinguish intentional behaviour that is commendable from that which is contemptible.  It follows then that societal changes do not necessarily produce ‘winners’ who are morally praiseworthy, or ‘losers’ who merit neglect.  On the contrary, in books such as Social Development: its nature and conditions, and Democracy and Reaction, Hobhouse explained how moral progress related to the improvement of human relationships, and the activities of warring imperialists, racist conquerors, and economic oppressors should accordingly be censured and countered.

 

Building on his ideas on harmony and cooperation in attaining epistemological and moral progress, Hobhouse set out a theory of social development which explains how people throughout history would go through three stages of interpersonal governance (see, e.g., Morals in Evolution, and Social Evolution and Political Theory).  The first stage is that of kinship where family and tribal links provide familiarity, trust, and shared customs to hold groups together. Then came rule by authority where the power obtained by a few enable them to command compliance from larger, disparate groups.  Finally, there is the model of citizenship, which operates through democratic self-rule with diverse and equal citizens sharing power in shaping the laws that govern them all.  Hobhouse stressed that there was a moral case to seek progress towards the model of citizenship, but warned that anti-progressive forces could push societies into fragmented inward looking groups or towards subjugation by new forms of authoritarianism.  Progress is desirable but not guaranteed.

 

Having argued for making progress towards a more cooperative society structured around democratic citizenship, Hobhouse took aim at prevailing notions of the state and put forward an alternative goal for political action.  In Liberalism, he challenged the assumption that a liberal state should leave people to behave without constraint so that the fittest would survive.  He pointed out that those fittest in hurting, threatening, oppressing others might not be fit at all to have power over others in society.  Instead, the state should not only prevent individuals from intimidating or exploiting others, but also tackle the systemic disadvantages some people have been burdened with. Furthermore, public policies could support research, education, and collaboration to help citizens achieve more than they could on their own.  At the same time, Hobhouse was critical of the idealisation of the state that was popular with Hegelian academics and authoritarian politicians.  In The Metaphysical Theory of the State: a criticism, he rejected the idea that the state could by itself embody some higher purpose which it was then entitled to pursue regardless of what citizens think.  For Hobhouse, the state exists to serve the public, and its legitimacy rests on citizens’ own assessment of its actions.  Ultimately, the state must be held in check through democratic accountability.

 

It is not uncommon to hear these days that there is no coherent philosophy to guide social and political reflections.  Between ‘anything goes’ relativism and parochial dogmatism, there is no path for reasoned consensus or informed cooperation.  But Hobhouse gave us many insightful pointers a century ago.  We would do well to revisit them and take up his challenge to map out a route towards a more thoughtful and inclusive society.

Learning to Blame

‘Praise’ is generally well liked.  But ‘blame’ gets a bad press.

Nobody takes kindly to ‘blame culture’, or ‘blame game’.  Everyone is warned about ‘not throwing stones in glass houses’, or ‘casting the first stone when one is not without sin’.

 

Of course, blaming others unjustly, incorrectly, or hypocritically deserves censure. Yet it is vital to understand where blame should go for the harm and danger we encounter.  If we routinely fail to identify the real causes of different problems that come our way, we won’t be able to deal with them or avoid further losses and sufferings.

 

Think of problems such as diseases, earthquakes, floods, that had been erroneously blamed on supernatural or magical forces.  Not only did laying blame in the wrong direction divert attention from the actual source of harm, it led to further mistakes like callous and futile sacrifices to imaginary beings.  Through scientific advancement we are able to determine what should really be blamed and how they could be averted. Unfortunately, many are still too easily misled about threats from climate change to vaccine rejection.

 

In human relations, inherited prejudices and lack of wide-ranging interpersonal experiences can make people susceptible to overlook blame that should be ascribed to culprits such as exploitative employment practices and plutocratic policies (which cause deprivation and marginalisation), and channel it instead towards misconceived targets such as immigration or multiculturalism.  There should be outrage against injustice, but anger bred from blind hatred against scapegoats must not be tolerated.

 

Without forensic examination, criminal trials can become farcical with innocent people being blamed for offences they have nothing to do with, while the guilty ones walk free because there is no process to connect the evidence of their wrongdoing to any police or court action.  It is a mark of arbitrary rule everywhere that the objective analysis of evidence is jettisoned in favour of autocratic judgements.

 

Last but not least, institutional arrangements to secure accountability are essential for establishing who are assigned the power and responsibility to act on behalf of all members of the institution in question (e.g., a company, a trade union, a country), and what credit or blame is to be apportioned to their actions. Blaming leaders when they deserve praise is as bad as backing those who ought to be chastised or removed for inexcusable transgression.  

 

Blame is not something we should shy away from attributing – so long as we do so on the basis of careful, systematic, and objective examination.  And that requires learning.  Education at all levels should enhance our understanding of how scientific research, behavioural psychology, forensic techniques, institutional accountability, help to pinpoint blame for the things we want to avoid.  

 

Blaming the innocent is unjust.  Never blaming the real culprit is folly.