Neal Lawson's illiberalism - 2 comments
Says the Don (who also links to several other critiques), Compass Chair, Neal Lawson, is "a man with a track record of inept and counter-productive support of a range of good causes". The latest mission: using your own ignorance of economics and philosophy, and reluctance to engage with other's arguments, erect a straw man, and call him The Political System. Then, contrarian, demolish with whatever argument you fancy: here, the lukewarm platitudes of priests.
Where do we get moral leadership from today? As we pick up the pieces of another swiped out festive season it's a fitting question. Is there something more to life than the endless cycle of overconsumption? How can the Iraq war or exorbitant city bonuses be justified? Increasingly it is our religious rather than political leaders who attempt to answer these difficult and pressing questions.The mainstream media in this country undoubtedly trivialises politics in the UK, but the world is full of moral guidance (leadership, if you must): throughout our lives we watch, listen to, and read about the activities of people ranging from family members, to schoolteachers, businesspeople, politicians, and people with many different points of view and ideology, and we respond to what we take to be the positive and negative consequences of those actions, adapting towards what we hope to be 'the good life'. It's central to Lawson's argument that humanity is incapable of any such growth; without the moral leadership - and Lawson clearly has specific moral leadership in mind - the result is disaster. After all, what else could "overconsumption" mean? It's impossible to prove either way, it can be defined any way Neal likes, it sounds bad, and it plays on our guilt, so it's an essential part of the vocabulary for any budding puritan.
I had intended to post just before Christmas in defence of consumerism. It seems to be used overwhelmingly in a puritanical, as well as a snobbish manner, implying that self-appointed arbiters are a better judge of what people spend their money on than they themselves, that the general population is too unsophisticated to see through advertisers' messages, that most shoppers - unlike the happy aesthete - shop out of habit, and for the sheer love of money, and possessions. Consumerism* also implies the population, free to walk the streets, and the puritan fears this kind of mass movement. What is this moral guidance that the religious authorities have to offer? An anti-democratic contempt for the above, but without anything so controversial as an appeal to charity, humility, or generosity? Nothing but platitudes appear in Lawson's piece, just the unfalsifiable "Something (what?) is wrong; something must be done!" that we expect from a Cameron or a Princess Di.
To sacrifice the concept of individual freedom, as Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor appears to advocate - something that the powerless have struggled to seize from the powerful (religious leaders very much included) throughout human history - in favour of some hot air about "the fundamental questions on the sense and direction of our lives", seems designed to return humanity to the stupefaction of centuries past. If Lawson were to realise that it is attempts by religious authorities to increase their presence in schools, to advocate and enforce dress codes (those affected naturally only become "some of society's most vulnerable people" for Neal when the rules are challenged, and the religion takes offence on the individuals' behalf), to defend blasphemy laws, to suppress freedom of speech, to meekly tolerate violence against their own communities, or to tolerate and even advocate the preaching of violence against others - rather than the peaceful faith of individuals - that is a matter of legitimate public concern over the influence of religious representatives, he might be less inclined to impugn atheists, secularists, rationalists, and politicians, not to mention workers at Goldman Sachs.
Our politicians have forgotten that power and principle are two sides of the same coin. Politics has stopped being a different vision of the good society and is instead a job for technocrats and for self-proclaimed rationalists.To suggest that those involved in politics aren't interested in visions of a good society is a pretty ignorant comment for someone loosely involved with the blogosphere, and who must encounter individual politicians and political bloggers frequently. Neal might have a point if he has "managerialism" in his sights, but substituting the idea that unelected religious teachers should "lead and motivate the nation", in place of elected politicians doing so, hardly seems an attractive one, even if you believe that people have to be led. The fact that individuals, companies, or collectives, could be empowered to tackle society's problems in a more decentralised way seems hardly to have been considered. Now who's out of touch?
Not content with using the current state of Iraq to say "we were right" to the disparate group known as "opponents of the war", whatever the arguments - some 'realistic', some repulsive - those individuals employed, what Lawson implies is a kind of victor's justice, under which those who fall into the "supporters of the war" camp are to be judged moral criminals, morally vacuous, timorous, or 'careerist', irrespective of the arguments they used, and the principles they sought to promote and defend. Whatever kind of politics could produce this, it's not liberal. Only a tyrant - or a mob - could celebrate the chaos in Iraq - or indeed any argument they believe themselves to have won - with a victimisation of their opponents, as if the moral case was done and dusted, and the continuing debate pushed to one side. Norm's piece on this is a breath of fresh mountain air in comparison.
I don't deny that there will be religious figures (and to reiterate, I'm not talking about individuals with religious faith) who, on the basis of their brains, imagination, humanity, and so on, have acquired a moral authority of their own - or who bring evidence to discussions - and have earned the right to be listened to by thoughtful people. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who believes they enjoy the same right on the basis of their status within their particular sect, or on the basis of a personal recommendation by Neal Lawson (for whom "overly rationalist" is a censure, rather than a precondition for an intelligent debate), can get to the back of a very long queue.
-----
* My dictionary gives an additional definition of "consumerism", namely "the protection or promotion of the interests of consumers". Is this also frowned upon?
Labels: Compass, consumerism, Iraq, liberalism, rationalism, religion
![[Valid Atom]](http://www.bloggers4labour.org/images/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom feed")
2 comments so far...
Iâm afraid I found this to be a weak critique of my article. It was precisely the politics of managerialism I was aiming that is why I wrote âTechnocratic politics has replaced religion as the opiate of the masses.â If you donât agree with what I wrote then fine but erecting some fantasy article to knock down is just silly. I donât want religious leaders to replace politicians and didnât say so. I did say and think it is interesting that on issue like Iraq, Lebanon and the growing gap between the rich and poor it is religious leaders who speak out not political leaders. As for your defence of consumerism â its fine if you want to protect peopleâs ability to buy as much junk as they want â its just not my vision of the good society. Rampant consumerism is destroying the planet and making lives a misery in the search for fulfilment. Along the way it compensates us just enough to keep us going. We do it because there is nothing else to do. Politics no longer inspires. The circle is complete.
Hi Neal,
I didn't deny that you might be addressing "managerialism", though the term is sufficiently widely used to be familiar to bloggers, and could have been stated explicitly. Two points though: (a) managerialism is definitely not the same as technocracy; and (b) it is not logical to jump from a criticism of managerialism to an endorsement of the views of religious leaders who are, like professional managers, also detached from the running of government/everyday politics (and perhaps similarly motivated by faith, rather than practice).
I don't think it's helpful to say I erected "some fantasy article": you should criticise each of my claims you disagree with in turn
Politicians, and individuals of all kinds speak out about political, social, economic, and other issues. Perhaps the problem is that they're not heard, because of assumptions made by the mainstream media about what is acceptable, or interesting, or controversial? That certain religious leaders are indeed granted the right to invade our screens and our newspapers is not proof that (a) they're the only ones speaking, or (b) if politicians can't be listened to (can't they?), that religious leaders must be, as the only alternative. Somehow I'm able to listen to neither, taking my news from people who don't have to make assertions based on faith or ideology. Millions of bloggers find themselves in the same happy position.
As for your defence of consumerism â its fine if you want to protect people's ability to buy as much junk as they want â its just not my vision of the good society.
Well, until we can posit then introduce an alternative society that people will freely 'buy into', then as liberals we have to both accept and protect people's right to buy junk (whether I think it's junk, or even if they do, is by the by).
Rampant consumerism is destroying the planet [...]
'Rampant' things are usually beyond the pale, yes, but I accept the fact that there is a huge ecological cost. Of course, many other things are costly, too, and the most successful strategy in the log-term might be to reduce the ecological footprint, rather than promoting abstinence, or believing (say) that the State could allocate resources better. Perhaps you're right, and the culture can be changed, but you'll have to make that case exceptionally well.
...and making lives a misery in the search for fulfilment.
Thing is: even if we accept that religious leaders have a handle on this, what they preach is faith and irrationality, and any non-faith solution they propose will be likewise crippled. There are many manifestos for happiness, and a common theme is giving people control over their lives. This you could have mentioned. For what it's worth I believe (in fact, I argued) that religious leaders' aim is to deny people that control.
One final thought (that I should have included originally), is your assumption that tackling today's "Technocratic politics" would shift the political debate in one direction only: yours. Of course that's an attractive prospect to people who share your stance on those issues, but why the assumption that a liberated populace will follow you on Lebanon, Trident, Iraq, and others?
Post a Comment
<< Home