SOCIAL COHESION AND BREAKDOWN
12.11.07
Ted Trainer
Many aspects of our society are now clearly getting worse
from year to year, such as inequality, homelessness, drug abuse, stress,
anxiety, depression and violence. There is good reason to think that social
cohesion is deteriorating and the average quality of life is now falling.
It is argued below that social breakdown is largely due to the fact that "getting the economy going" is the dominant priority. When maximising the growth of production, incomes and business turnover is the supreme goal then social cohesion, social bonds, mutual aid, public institutions, friendship, citizenship and concern for the common good are undermined, people become more individualistic, acquisitive, competitive and isolated, and resources which could have gone into building community are put into stimulating the economy.
It is also
argued that the problem of cohesion cannot be solved within/by consumer
capitalist society. The many
important conditions needed for a good society canÕt be created without
transition to The Simpler Way.
Contents:
Accelerating social problems.
The quality of life is
falling now.
Community.
How do we rate?
Economic development damages
community and social cohesion.
Market relations drive out
social relations.
The solution: The Simpler
Way.
ACCELERATING SOCIAL PROBLEMS.
Even if we had
no problems of resource scarcity, ecological damage or global justice there
would still be a strong case for change from a society driven by the ceaseless
quest for affluent living standards and economic growth. Not only is that quest
not raising the quality of life in the rich coluntries, it is now seriously
damaging our social fabric.
Most social
problems have become worse in the last twenty years. Following is a list of the
areas in which it can be argued that the quality of our society and the quality
of individual life experience is declining.
- The incidence
of anxiety, stress and depression has increased greatly, now possibly 10
times as common as it was 20 years ago.
- Inequality has increased considerably.
- There are many
people living in poverty, or homeless.
- Youth suicide
is high. The rate doubled among
Australian males in the last generation.
- The sense of security
has declined. A generation ago people felt safer on the streets, were more able
to leave doors unlocked, could let their children go out unsupervised, worried
less about unemployment or being able to pay for illness or aged care. Their financial security in old age, is
increasingly dependent on the fate of their savings invested in the stock
market.
- Drug and alcohol problems have
escalated. A few decades ago there was almost no hard drug problem in
Australia. The problem would hardly exist if people were not bored, deprived,
stressed and discontented, or had access to healthy and supportive communities. Similarly much self harm, smoking
analgesic consumption, obesity and other eating disorders must be due in large
part to the unsatisfactory social conditions many experience, especially having
nothing worthwhile to do, and not being within an active, caring communities. The problems of indigenous peoples are
largely explicable in terms of being deprived of purpose.
- The health and effectiveness of the
family are a concern. There is a high rate of family break down. The family
and community have less influence in socialising children than they used to,
compared with the media and commerce. Both parents are less often at home.
Commercial interests overwhelm parents and community with undesirable images
and values, especially with respect to aggression and violence.
- Public
services are deteriorating. Many public institutions, and services are
being cut back, eliminated or sold off, or transformed into corporations that
charge and must maximise profits (e.g.,
entry to museums used to be free, universities must make money.) Probably
the worst effects are to do with the health system. There are too few
hospitals, and they are grossly under-funded, with outrageous waiting times,
and an incredible death rate from mistakes. Large numbers of people canÕt afford dental services. More
than 40 million Americans have no health insurance. Australia is heading in the
same direction, towards expensive private health services for the few and
inadequate or no provision for the poor.
The increasing numbers of rich people can afford high class private
health, education, aged care etc., and they donÕt want to pay taxes to fund public services for
others.
- The
death of rural towns. All around the world the global economy is
destroying rural life. The economy does not need many people in the countryside.
- Public life has deteriorated. Most people live
only within their private world and have little to do with public affairs or
cooperative activity intended to benefit their society. The discussion of public issues
mostly takes the form of a few spokespersons from large organisations
commenting briefly on TV while people watch passively. The very centralised
nature of the media determines that most people can't be involved in such
discussion. Public discussion then becomes 30 second exchanges between the
highly paid smooth-talking and evasive PR agents of large organisations.
Leaving a favourable impression or denying accusations is what matters, not
thorough and honest analysis. The symbolic significance or the image is
important, not the substance. Public relations personnel are therefore crucial.
They have to deliver good impressions. We have to judge products, candidates
and claims in terms of these superficial and deliberately deceptive
representations, not solid evidence of the way things actually are. Many are disgusted by all this, but
then retreat into their private lives.
- There is
political apathy, passivity, and little social responsibility.
Professionals, bureaucracies and corporations make the decisions and provide
most goods and services. So people live very privately, buy most of the things
they use and produce little for themselves, either in their households or with
others in their locality. Identity
comes from consuming, e.g., clothes, hairstyles, house stylesÉrather than from
productive roles or community activity.
There is cynicism and lack of respect for politicians; many see little
point in bothering about politics.
- Work is far
from satisfying for many people. It is just a means to earn money. This is
one of the worst things about industrial-affluent society. We are forced to
work far more than would be necessary in a sensible society. Many are having to work longer and
harder and in more insecure conditions. Many families need two incomes
now. The real incomes of 80% of
Americans have hardly risen in 30 years.
- Most environmental
conditions which impact on the experienced quality of life are
deteriorating, such as traffic congestion and noise, pollution of air and
water, urban sprawl, the distance that must be travelled to work. The costs of energy, water, transport
and food are set to rise markedly.
- The amount of
vandalism, graffiti, car theft etc. indicates that many people have little
respect for public property and many are so bored and lacking in purpose and
decency that theft and destruction are attractive. Urban decay is rampant
through many cities, especially in the US. There is violent crime, squalor, homelessness, drug
dependence, mugging, street gangs, police corruption, and whole regions without
any hope of improvement.
- A few centralised media dominate thought and action.
We can only form a view of the world in terms of very selected images and
simulations presented to us by the media. It is in their interests to reinforce
consumer values and the legitimacy of capitalist power, especially by
distracting with mostly trivial, spectacular, violent entertaining material.
There is obsession with sport, disasters, crime, scandals, soap operas and
celebrities. The critical analysis of crucial social issues given by the media
is very weak, and fundamental criticism (e.g., of capitalism or growth) almost
never appears. Adverts and movies set models and ideals which can't be achieved
unless people purchase things like beauty and slimming products. High rates of
consumption are portrayed as normal. Media show violence as normal, exciting
and attractive and a legitimate means of conflict resolution. It is in the
interests of the media to screen out, exaggerate, distort and sanitise. They
reinforce the impression that life is about acquiring lots of commodities and
having a good time; i.e., self-indulgence. The terrible consequences the system has in the Third World
are kept out of view, or sanitised, or interpreted in ways that conceal what is
happening. (For instance the Western bombing of Yugoslavia was described as
Òhumanitarian interventionÓ.)
- Consumer
culture. People have become more materialistic, greedy, and hedonistic. The
"normal" house or car most people want is luxurious. The average
Australian house size has doubled in the last generation. People expect life to
be about purchasing luxuries and having fun. ÒInstant gratificationÓ is sought,
e.g., young couples go into huge debt to have all the things their parents had
to work years to pay for. Luxurious standards are accepted as normal, expected
and deserved. Status display (of clothes, cars, houses) and style are
important. Progress and the purpose of life are increasingly defined in terms
of getting richer. Shopping is an
important part of life, one of its main satisfactions.
-
Post-modern
cultureÓ; Preoccupation of popular culture with events and experiences that
are trivial, fleeting, exciting, spectacular, e.g., ads, sport, video
games, the Olympics, popular music, celebrities. Throw-away cultural products.
Superficial, temporary hedonism. Constantly looking for the next momentary
thrill. Fantasy is important. We have a culture largely of trashy, short-lived,
throw-away plastic products, fleeting experiences and transitory relations. A
culture of the shallow and superficial.
Old, simple, cheap, functional and durable things are not valued that
much.
-
There is great
interest in the rich and famous; celebrities are envied and idolised,
extravagant wealth is desirable and admirable. Stories about the rich and
powerful are attractive. For most people those clothes, houses and lifestyles
are impossible to attain, but they can enjoy them via fantasy, -- and gamble in
the hope of attaining them.
(Science Show, ABC, 11.11.07)
- There is an increasingly
self-centred and indifferent outlook. Although there has been an increase
in some relevant indices, such as volunteering and charitable giving, the
general climate of opinion seems to have
become more focussed on the individualistic competitive pursuit of
wealth over the last generation.
Narcissism, the "me generation". There is little serious concern about the world, let alone
the way rich world affluence would not be possible if we were not taking Third
World resources and gearing their ÒdevelopmentÓ to stocking our
supermarkets. Such issues are not
discussed in the media. Newspapers
have large ÒlifestyleÓ and Ògood livingÓ sections. Any political party suggesting that taxes be raised to
eliminate poverty would lose an election. The richer majority and the very rich
are OK. Walled housing estates are built for the middle class. There are more
private police than public police in the US, to protect the property of richer
people. Upper classes are refusing to pay as much tax as they used to for the
maintenance of public services; they can go to private hospitals. The rapidly
increasing inequality is not resented; the concern is to be among the winners,
and the right of those who get rich to a privileges is accepted as rewards for
their superior talent and energy.
There is little citizenship or social responsibility or concern about
"the common good". Society has become more selfish, greedy,
indifferent, and predatory. People are increasingly willing to sue for damages.
Goods are often shoddy and not made to last. Adverts are often fraudulent.
Astronomical CEO salaries are tolerated. The legal profession booms.
Executives, consultants and professionals charge outrageous fees without
challenge. Property values are pushed higher as affluent people compete for
more and more expensive houses, and increasing numbers can never afford to own
one. No one sees anything
questionable about making a lot of money because the value of the housing or
shares bought ten years ago have doubled.
Above all, getting as rich as possible is regarded as morally good,
respectable,.. a sign of talent and quality.
- ...and
there is little or no dissent! The many serious social problems confronting
us evoke little or no serious complaint, fundamental criticism or protest, e.g.,
the treatment of animals in factory farming, the existence of poverty,
unemployment, shoddy products that are not made to last, the run down of public
facilities such as hospitals, the stress and insecurity people experience, let
alone the suffering within the Third World. The free enterprise market system
seems to be accepted by all as the only and the best way. The collapse of
communism seems to have sealed the triumph of capitalism. Little effort is now needed to ensure
that the system is seen as legitimise or to keep people in line. They have been
seduced by affluence and consuming and these can be seen as the powerful new
source of compliance, stability and legitimacy in our society. There is no
longer any need for repression, e.g., to put down rebellious workers
threatening the system. People docilely and willingly conform through their
obsession with getting richer, with trivia É and with consuming
Even the large
numbers impoverished and dumped by the system accept their situation without a
whimper, indeed they are among the most enthusiastic participants in consumer
society; they happily devour the passifying spectacles, sport, soap operas,
trash products and the shopping mall experience.
More disturbing
is the absence of criticism and dissent on the part of the "educated"
and "intellectual" ranks. The middle and upper classes devote
themselves to career advancement, renovating, trading up to a better house,
getting their children into a private school, their share portfolios, and
accumulating property. They
quietly enjoy what Galbraith has referred to as "the culture of
contentment" and they have little interest in questioning the systems
which deliver their privileges.
They are strongly inclined to see their wealth and comfort as just
rewards for their hard work and to see poor people as deserving their fate,
because they lack talent and application.
Many
aspects of our society are very satisfactory and on several fronts significant
improvements are constantly being made. However many social analysts would
agree that in the last 20 years we have entered a period of accelerating social
decline and breakdown, in which stability, cohesion, citizenship and commitment
to the good of others and society in general are deteriorating. And these have been the most remarkably
prosperous decades in history – just wait until petroleum scarcity
impacts, or the global financial system collapses.
It is well
established that increasing economic wealth does not raise the quality of
life, so long as wealth is above poverty level. Long ago Easterlin (1972) reviewed more than 30 studies and
found that the experienced quality of life does not increase as the GDP
increases. Even with a doubling of the US GNP per capita in deflated terms
there has been no increase in the experienced quality of life. We are about three times as rich as our
grandparents were but it cannot be said that we enjoy life any more.
Douthwaite's The Growth Illusion, (1992) argues in detail that economic
growth is not increasing the quality of life. In fact he claims it has fallen
in Britain since 1955 (pp. 3, 9).
HamiltonÕs Affluenza and Growth Fetish, and Eckersley
(1997) review the extensive and convincing evidence that quality of life
does not increase with increasing income. The above list of social problems
suggests that in general the experienced quality of life in the rich countries
is now actually deteriorating as GDP increases.
This theme is
extremely important but its significance is largely ignored. The supreme goal of all governments and
of just about all people is to increase monetary wealth – yet it is clear
that this does not increase happiness, or any of the factors connected to the
quality of life, while it is the main cause of damage to social cohesion and
the environment. Politicians do
not ask ÒWhat policies might best increase the quality of life?Ó They only ask, ÒWhat will maximise the
GDP?Ó, when it has been established for a long time that this will not increase
the quality of life.
Politics should
be driven by concern to improve the quality of life of all, and effort should
constantly be going into monitoring the many factors involved and developing
better indices. By making growth
of GDP the supreme goal of social policy is geared to the interests of those
who benefit most from selling things in a market. It is encouraging that increasing public attention is now
being given to indices of the quality of life.
COMMUNITY
Community is a
most important element in a satisfactory quality of life, yet its significance
is rarely given the attention it deserves. Many of the problems our society is
encountering can be explained in terms of the lack of community.
Community is an
imprecise concept but it would seem to involve the following elements.
-
Having
many familiar personal relations. Having access to or contact with many
people who you know well. It involves friendliness and feeling connected to
many people. Important here is
Òface to faceÓ communication, meeting, talking to, and sharing with other
people (so an internet group or people with the same religious outlook who do
not meet would only constitute a weaker kind of community.)
-
Identification
with a place or group. "This is my town. I like this place. I feel at
home here. I belong here." In
The Simpler Way bonds to a location are important; i.e., ÒbioregionalÓ
connectedness and Òearth bondingÓ.
-
Solidarity
and cohesion. "People around here cooperate and support each other. We
are in some sense comrades. There are bonds between us. We are concerned with
the welfare of this place and its people. There are people around here who
would look after me if I were in need. I can trust them and rely on
them". Therefore strong
community provides much security, whereas in an individualistic society your
security depends on your own strength or wealth because you canÕt depend so
much on others coming to your assistance.
-
Mutual
concern and assistance, concern for the common good. People care about and
do things for each other. There are gifts and debts, gratitude and obligation,
interdependence, voluntary contributions and reciprocity. "Fred helped me
fix the fence so I'll take him some of our peaches." Concern for our town, our library, our
older citizens – and our problems and needs. Especially important are
common responsibilities, such as the need to keep the town bushfire equipment in
good order. Hence a sense of civic responsibility by concern for the common
good. In other words, there is a
strong collectivist outlook.
-
Traditions,
rituals and celebrations. A sense of our local history. Events and dates
that are significant in the history of this town. Things we celebrate together.
-
Moral
debts and obligations. In a
strong community people are doing things for each other all the time, giving
and receiving ÒgiftsÓ and help.
This creates many strong moral debts, feelings of obligation to repay,
to give in return. This is an
important source of security; people will help others in time of need knowing
that if they all do things like this they will all be able to get help when
they need it. This is not
calculated self-interest; in a good community people help each other because
they want to and like doing this, just as members of a good family want to do
things for each other, partly because of the nice climate created by
cooperation and helping.
Note how none of
these elements has anything to do with money or conventional economic theory
and practice. They are all about
the social forces, structures, bonds and rewards that make a
society strong and satisfying and noble, or otherwise.
These factors
are also sometimes thought of as making up "social wealth" or
"social capital". In a strong community people have much social
wealth, i.e., relationships, habits and expectations which guarantee access to
friendship, security, cooperation, civil interactions, assistance and pleasant
social experience. These sorts of factors are much more important in enriching
life than merely having financial wealth. In pre-industrial societies people
devote a great deal of time to maintaining these social relations, which then
give them community, support, security and satisfactions.
We
should not use the term Òsocial capitalÓ.
Social cohesion is quite different to
mere monetary capital and it is important not to think about social issues in
the way that conventional economists think. They collapse everything into the single dimension of
monetary value, and thereby grossly distort understanding. The stuff sometimes referred to as
Òsocial capitalÓ is very complex and incomprehensible, involving many mysterious
factors such as pride, friendship, memories, morale, manners, social
connections, history, ideology, tradition, emotional bonds, religion, and
feelings of security, reciprocity, obligation, debt, gratitude, generosityÉIt
is impossible to think of all these in terms of one dimension that can be quantified,
like monetary value. You canÕt
take a quantity of it from one place and invest it or spend it somewhere else,
as you can with money from a bank.
(ItÕs not ÒfungibleÓ.) Often when you ÒspendÓ social wealth you then
have more than you had before, such as when you give gifts or assistance
or tell a joke. Social wealth has no financial value and does not behaviour
according to the ÒlawsÓ of the market place.
So donÕt let the economists with their
paltry, impoverished conceptual tool box (containing only one thing) take over
the discussion of social phenomena and the nature of a good society.
How do we rate on community?
How much
community is there in the typical city suburb? Some of us do enjoy considerable
experience of community, e.g ., in football clubs and churches, but many do not
and this must be a major source of social breakdown.
-
Many people
live as isolated individuals or in nuclear families. Many of us have
little or nothing to do with the people next door. We live very privately, without
much sharing or cooperation.
-
Life in
our society is a competitive struggle between individuals in a situation
where all cannot succeed. Even in the richest countries maybe a third of all
people are dumped into considerable deprivation, including the soul-destroying
experience of unemployment. ÒLosersÓ are not given much assistance or sympathy.
Even those who succeed must constantly strive as insecure individuals to get
scarce things others are after. Even the large middle classes who are among the
economic winners in the competitive scramble suffer high rates of anxiety,
stress, and depression. This competitive situation in which many must lose does
not facilitate cooperation and community. Our society is not organised in terms
of working collectively to improve the welfare of all, especially those in most
need.
-
There
are powerful forces and structures
in our economy towards cutting people adrift and dumping them. All must struggle constantly to find
and keep a job, and it is not possible for all to do this – there are
always more people seeking jobs than there are jobs. It is an economy in which the strongest are always trying to
take the sales and markets others have.
Thus it forces many to lose their livelihood. In a good society effort would be made to provide for all,
to make sure no one is dumped, excluded, or without a livelihood.
-
We move
a lot. On average each American family probably moves house each five
years. This reduces the tendency to "put roots down" and to become
identified with a place. We also move to work each day, meaning that we are not
interacting with our local community most of the time. We live in dormitory suburbs, often hardly knowing anyone we live near.
The significance of mobility is most evident when it comes to the
care of old people. This is best carried out by the members of a community,
such as the whole tribe as distinct from the members of as single family, many
of whom were cared for as children by the people who are now old. The carers
would then know that they would in turn be cared for many years hence when they
are old. These understandings
cannot develop when people come and go rapidly from a locality. This makes it
impossible to build up and pay off moral debts and obligations between young
and old.
-
Because we
live in cities we have many impersonal relations, with relatively few
familiar people. How well do you know the people you buy your food from? In a
city most of the people we meet might as well be machines. Hence the term
"the lonely crowd". Familiar
personal relations are more likely in small settlements.
-
Many people
have little access to emotional support. Large numbers are lonely and
depressed. Many people are allowed to become homeless or impoverished,
therefore it is no surprise that many turn to alcohol and drugs. Many
self-destruct or become socially destructive.
-
This
society deliberately and energetically teaches children hostility, violence,
predation and contempt for others.
Many TV shows (e.g., cartoons) and electronic games, are about little
more than aggression, violence, destruction and defeating and trashing others.
We also teach people to be fiercely competitive rather than cooperative,
especially in sport, school, social life and the economy. By comparison little effort goes into
encouraging people to be friendly, cooperative and helpful to each other.
-
Many people
have too little time to become involved in local affairs.
-
Our
society is very elitist. The winners, heroes, champions and big achievers
are idolised. This fits in with the ideology of competitive individualism
whereby we come to think it is legitimate and acceptable for a few to win and
take most of the wealth, status and power. If you are poor, lonely, unemployed
it is your own fault for not being more skilled and energetic. However in a
satisfactory society the emphasis would be on participation and equality, on
organising to make sure the least able were provided for, and especially on the
capacity of all ordinary people to be responsible and skilled citizens who help
to run their local socio-economic system. A good society must be an intensely
participatory democracy, in which we all take responsibility and control and
donÕt leave things to elites. A
good society would discourage or prevent he development of significant
inequality, because it is socially destructive. (ÒPrimitiveÓ tribes often have
mechanisms that prevent anyone becoming dominant or rich.)
-
There is little
identification with one's area or place of living. Suburbs are dormitories.
Houses are often just temporary conveniences or commodities.
-
People have
few common tasks and responsibilities. We do not spend time working
together in our neighbourhoods to improve it or perform useful public functions
. Distant bureaucrats and
corporations do all that.
-
The
public sphere is being reduced, especially as state spending is cut and
state institutions and services are "privatised";; i.e., taken over
by corporations and run for profit. Shopping malls are private spaces. Museums,
railways, schools, prisons, hospitals, aged care facilities, universities,
leisure spaces are increasingly being run, funded or controlled by private
corporations; we are less able to think of these as "our" public
institutions, services and spaces, functioning to serve us (as distinct from
make profits).
-
There are few
meaningful festivals, rituals and traditions. Compare white Australia to
any peasant or tribal society, including Aboriginal tribes.
-
There are few
forces on people to get together, cooperate, take collective responsibility,
think of the good of their community.
They are not responsible for running important local functions –
councils, corporations and professionals do everything.
-
There is
little citizenship; how many give time to working for the good of their
localities?
-
The
climate of opinion has become more selfish, competitive, greedy and callous. The triumph of neo-liberal
globalisation over the last 30 years has asserted the normality and legitimacy
of individuals seeking to maximise their own advantage, and it has ridiculed
and eliminate collectivist attitudes.
Adam Smith is taken to have shown that by seeking to get as rich as
possible individuals actually make their greatest possible contribution to
society. This has reinforced the
tendency for governments to de-emphasise public goods, services and
property. Instead of focusing on
arrangements that would provide well for all, redistributing wealth where
necessary, attention is given to enabling people to compete to be among the
winners. Collectivism has been
made to appear mistaken and passŽ.
Greed is good (for everyone).
Losers are a drain on our taxes.
One way of
expressing this problem of community is to say, "We have lost our
tribe". People living in tribal societies do not have these problems of lack
of community. Of course some
tribal and peasant societies there can be too much ÒcommunityÕ, for example
where we would say the group has too much influence over private lives. The task is to find a satisfactory
balance.
The lack of
community most seriously affects people with problems, most notably the single
parent, the disabled, poor people and the aged. The young and the affluent can
to some extent find or buy alternative satisfactions, but without community
many old people are condemned to a life of isolation and boredom. (Elderly men have a high suicide rate.)
The community is
a crucial and irreplaceable agent of socialisation. As people interact with
others in a satisfactory community, good social values are constantly
reinforced. They experience the benefits of helping and cooperation. Children
hear their parents chatting to others about important local issues, expressing
concern for the welfare of each other and of the area, and for standards and
traditions. We experience parents and friends helping each other, cooperating
to do important things for our community, expressing concern for others. We get satisfaction from participating
in the festivals and civic duties that we can then see contributing to the
welfare of all. We come into frequent contact with many others and share their
perspectives on the locality.
These experiential learnings about the way the world is and about what
is rewarding to do cannot be learned from books or from the pronouncements of
parents and teachers. Contrast
this with the socialisation experience of children who live in high-rise units
without contact with neighbours and who shop as isolated individuals in
supermarkets.
Especially
unwise is the way we neglect young people. They have no important role in society,
no valued status and no important contribution to make, precisely at the time when they need to
form identity and see themselves as useful and as worthy of respect. More than 300,000 teenage Australians
are not in work or in school. This is no way to form a good citizen. It is not surprising that many turn to
drugs, alcohol, hooliganism, graffiti, fast cars, etc. to achieve status and to
defeat boredom.
We pay a high
price for our poor level of community, not just in terms of the isolation many
people experience, but in terms of the costly social problems it generates. If
people experienced more community fewer people would become depressed or turn
to drugs or crime. Friends would foresee many problems emerging such as
domestic violence, mental illness and child abuse before they became serious.
It costs a lot to keep an individual in an institution such as a prison or a
drug rehabilitation unit. Add the costs of break-ins and muggings to pay for
drugs etc. and the cost of all the police, courts, prisons and social workers.
Add the economic and psychological damage caused by the street racing crashes,
vandalism, petty theft, break-insÉby rebellious, bored teenagers. Far more
important is the emotional cost associated with violence, drug abuse, child neglect
and abuse, loneliness, depression, suicide etc.
Again, possibly
most serious of all is the effect on ÒcollectivistÓ spirit. Community is self-reinforcing and when
it is weak or damaged things spiral in the opposite direction, towards a more
fierce struggle between individuals for self interested purposes, neg lect of
those who canÕt compete well, and hardening of attitudes. Neo-liberal doctrine reinforces and
legitimises these things.
The term
"anomie" refers to the lack of social bonds. In pre-industrial
societies social bonds were strong and individuals participated and played
their roles without any need for a state. By contrast in our society there has
to be a huge state with vast powers, vast budgets and hoards of bureaucrats and
experts in order to perform all the functions that communities once performed
for themselves, such as looking after old people. Then we need armies of social workers, police etc, to
deal with those who deviate. How
is it that the Kalahari Bushmen have no police, no courts, no prisons and no
social workers, yet none of them seem to be lonely, to suicide or to turn to
alcohol or drugs?
Perhaps most
distressing is the ÒspiritualÓ cost.
Even in the richest societies large numbers of people are far less
contented than they could be, living stunted lives struggling with unnecessary
difficulties or boring work. Many
are nowhere near as enthusiastic, thriving and fulfilled, as they could be. Many lack purpose and/or the capacity
to pursue goals, most obviously the unemployed, homeless, aged, and indigenous
groups. (See The Spiritual
Significance of The Simpler Way.)
ECONOMIC ÒDEVELOPMENTÓ DAMAGES COMMUNITY AND
SOCIAL COHESION.
If the top
priority in a society is increasing the amount of production for sale then many
things that undermine community will occur. Many industries and established
communities will be "restructured" as factories close down or open in
new areas, changing familiar townscapes, depriving people of livelihoods and requiring
many families to move and break emotional ties to people and places. Freeways
will be put through stable neighbourhoods. Peasants will lose their livelihood
as foreign corporations come in and take their markets.
Especially
important is the increasing pressure to commercialise as many functions as
possible, i.e., for corporations and professionals to take over the supply of
many things we once did for ourselves. The more they do this the more the GNP
rises, but individuals and communities lose functions, control, autonomy, livelihoods,
self respect and the incentive to interact and to take responsibility. For
example we are now preparing less of our own food, while buying more take-away
food and we purchase entertainment, furniture, child minding, counselling,
insurance, security, education, aged careÉ.
It is of course
very much in the interests of the corporations for us to exist as isolated
individuals who do less and less for ourselves and have to buy everything from
them. So they spend vast sums on advertising to persuade us to buy products but
no one makes any effort to persuade us to get together to do things for our
neighbourhood or town. When we become bored or lonely or depressed we have to
try to buy entertainment or pay for professional counselling – or go shopping.
Very important
here is the fact that most of our society's capital and development resources
flow only into ventures that will increase production for sale and therefore
lead to more passive, private consuming. Few go into projects that might
stimulate more community self-sufficiency and involvement. For example almost
no resources go into developing neighbourhood workshops, drama clubs and
leisure-rich environments. Those developments would not only contribute nothing
to "getting the economy going".
They would actually reduce GNP by enabling people to live better while
purchasing less.
However most
important of all is the destructive connection between community values and
market relations.
Market
relations destroy social relations.
This is a
marketing society and when buying and selling within a market situation is
allowed to become the main mechanism whereby people acquire the things they
need, then desirable social attitudes, bonds and relations are driven out.
When you enter a
market situation to buy or sell you have to be selfish. You go into the
market to get things for yourself, and you must focus on how to maximise your
own advantage and to minimise that of the other person. Markets allow things to go to those who
can pay most for them. The situation does not stimulate thought about what
would be good for other people or society as a whole. But it is impossible to
have any society, let alone a good one, unless there is much more than self
interest; i.e., unless there is concern with what would be good for others and
for the society as a whole. Self-interest is only one of the many motives and
values people have, and the quality of their society depends on their social
and moral values, not on their self interest, competition and acquisitiveness.
In other words a
society is not possible unless people have concern for more than their own self
interest. There must be concern for social values such as being honest, doing
the right thing, seeing justice done, standards, the public good, and supporting
what is good for others, traditions and customs, religious commitments,
cultural values and practices, equity, and the situation of the least fortunate
concern for the public good, for morality and decency, pride in society,
respect for law, appreciation for good institutions, concern for those less
fortunate, concern for the environment and desire to see social progress. These are the things that constitute
society; if they are absent you do not have a society. The more emphasise we
put on mere market relations, i.e., trading to maximise our individual
advantage, then the less attention and value will be given to the
other-regarding values that make society possible, let alone satisfactory or
admirable. The two are
contradictory.
What would happen if mum made the toast and sold it to the
highest bidder?!
Dad would get the toast, because he can pay more for it. The
kids, and grandma, would starve.
The things that make a family satisfactory are precisely the
many non-market relations, the giving, mutual aid, and concern for the welfare
of others, and the satisfaction that comes from doing what will make others
thrive. When you let market
relations determine what happens you drive out good human relations and replace
them with self-interest, suspicion and predatory behaviour.
Thus we can see
the serious mistake in identifying society with its economy, which economists
are strongly inclined to do.
Markets, wealth seeking, trading, investing and making money are dangerous
to society, because they are about individuals pursuing self-interest. It
might be satisfactory to have a market sector within a society, so long as it
is a minor part of the society and subject to moral, pro-social values and
rules (i.e., ÒembeddedÓ.)
Again these
damaging effects on solidarity are the most disturbing consequences of the
recent triumph of neo-liberalism.
It is eliminating concern for the common good. It makes us all into individual entrepreneurs which must
focus on our own self-interest and survival in a difficult and hostile market
place, working against all others, knowing that not all can get jobs or prosper
or be secure. It generates rapidly
increasing inequality. It makes
altruism and cooperation and concern about social issues irrelevant at best, or
liabilities holding us back. But
in a good society the basic outlook is collective; people are very concerned
about what is good for their society and for those least fortunate. Neo-liberalism is not just generating a
more selfish, mean, unequal, predatory, brutal and callous society, it is
destroying the fundamental social bonds, solidarity and cohesion, without which
you cannot have a society.
Polanyi has
written influential works on the history of the transition to predominantly
market relations which our society began some 500 years ago. (Dalton,
1968.) He stresses that no
previous society allowed the market to be the dominant factor in society. But
that is what our society does. In all societies before our own, if there was a
market sector it was kept under firm social control. The main factors that
determine what goods were produced and how things were distributed were
considerations of morality, justice, tradition, and what is good for people and
the environment. (This is not to say that those rules would be ones we would
approve.) Polanyi argues that allowing the market to have so much influence has
been a very serious mistake. If the market is not kept under social control it
will actually destroy society and its ecosystems. Many would say this is precisely
what we are seeing in the neo-liberal era. Increasingly everything becomes a commodity that can be sold
to maximise profit and this canÕt be restrained by considerations of morality,
public interest etc. The result is
accelerating inequality, ecological destruction and deterioration in the
attitudes and values that produce social cohesion.
We urgently need
to, as Polanyi says, "re-embed" the market within society, i.e., to
put the market under social control, so that the main considerations are not whether
some action will maximise profit, but whether it is morally right and socially
desirable. However, since 1970 the
global economy has plunged in the opposite direction. Globalisation represents an increasingly ruthless drive by
capital to push into additional profitable investment outlets, i.e., to
eliminate the social regulation, the considerations of justice, etc. which used
to restrain profit seeking and self interest.
THE SOLUTION?
There can be no
solution to the deterioration of community and cohesion within
industrial-affluent-consumer-capitalist society. The problems are caused by
the fundamental elements in such a society, by the individualistic competitive
pursuit of affluence and economic growth and especially by the excessive and
increasing freedom given to market forces and corporations.
Community cannot
be band-aided on, added to, a social system whose defining structures and
processes embody the very opposite of community, the forcers that destroy it.
Community and cohesion have to be understood as characteristics of a society
that is integrated well and functions well, without major internal
contradictions, that more or less meets the needs of all, doesnÕt dump and
deprive people, doesnÕt pit all against all in competition, can be regarded by
all with pride, and leads people to want to be good citizens and good
contributors – and have strong structures and mechanisms which generate
collectivist behaviour and outlook. The Simpler Way brings the necessary
conditions for community. (See detail on the nature of The Simpler Way.)
It is not that
we must build a sustainable society and we must also build good
community, (and we must build a society that does not deprive the Third
World, and one which defuses warÉ) – it is that The Simpler Way
solves all these problems at once, because it is a way that cannot exist
unless there is strong community and solidarity, and ecological
sustainability and living standards which do not require some to take more than
their fair share of global resources.
Consider the
centrality in The Simpler Way of some of the main factors that are important
for social cohesion. (Note that
this is not a wish list. These are
conditions which are crucial for the Simpler Way; it cannot work without them.)
Giving.
The basic unit
in The Simpler Way will be the small highly self-sufficient local economy in
which many of the exchanges will not involve cash sales but will take the form
of giving (and therefore receiving). For example the surplus from your fruit trees or any
left-over materials from a repair job would be given to others or left at the
neighbourhood recycling centre for others to use. We would also give our time
to voluntary neighbourhood working bees.
The distinction
between giving and getting is important here, and easily overlooked. In consumer–capitalist society
the dominant outlook and motivation is to get. People work to get money, they go shopping to get things,
the compete to get, they live as individuals who have to get what they
want. Their lives do not involve
much giving. However in The
Simpler Way this situation is reversed.
All will give much time to working bees (voluntarily), will give
surpluses away, and will give attention to social issues and needs, and give
help to each other. If they donÕt
do these things their society will not work, but more importantly the giving
will be enjoyable. This situation
will build solidarity. The society
requires giving, but it also reinforces it. Giving brings out the best in us, and
makes us feel good. If people are
doing a lot of giving, they are also doing a lot of receiving. More importantly, giving creates the
right climate and outlook; it generates the generosity that releases and
multiplies goodness, concern for the other, etc. In The Simpler Way giving is the basic economic
mechanism – most of the things you need will be given to you, from
others or from the commons and social institutions, rather than bought. Selling generates no social bonds. Giving does, because it involves
thinking about who you would like to give to, gratitude from the receiver,
friendship, a climate of mutual
assistance and nurturance, and a ÒmoralÓ debt, i.e., readiness to reciprocate
some day. Buying and selling
usually create no lasting relations, but giving and receiving doÉand giving and
receiving are enjoyable.
ÒWhy
would I want to sell it if I can give it to someone?Ó
Security;
The fear of
insecurity that consumer-capitalist society imposes on everyone generates great
pressure to accumulate monetary wealth. Unless you can pay for insurance,
educational credentials, superannuation, entertainment, health insurance, aged
care, etc., you will suffer, because your fate depends on your individual
capacity to buy the things you need.
But in a tribe anyone who suffers a loss will be helped by all the
others. Most tribespeople are far
more secure than we are in western society.
In The Simpler Way all would be very
secure. It would (have to) be a mutually supportive community, in which all
would know they are making a valued contribution. All would have a strong incentive to contribute, help each
other and do what is best for the community (because if they donÕt their
society will not function well) and there would be many cultural and social
activities, festivals, celebrations and meetings and market days. There would
be many important productive and maintenance tasks, such as at community
gardens and workshops. These would
bring people together into important cooperative activity. These acts and experiences of mutual
aid and social contributing would generate strong feelings of familiarity,
solidarity, support, debt and gratitude. We would clearly understand that our
own individual welfare depended on how well the local society functioned, and
that if we did not contribute conscientiously it would not function well. Thus
the situation would require and it would reward behaviour that
benefited others and the community.
The new economy.
We would have
transferred much economic activity into a large non-cash sector where giving,
cooperatives, mutual aid, working bees etc would build community, social bonds
and cohesion. We would have taken
control over much of our own government, i.e., of determining how things will
be organised and run. Because all
will have a valued, rewarding contribution to make, a livelihood, no one will
suffer unemployment, or lack of purpose or self respect. We will organise such a cooperative
economy, under social control, because we will have to. We will not see local productive capacity
geared sensibly to meeting local needs.
The new economy must have many commons, working bees, committees and
town meetings, and it must be driven by citizens focussed on what is best for
all, not what will make most profit.
(There could still be many small private firms.)
The Òlimits to
growthÓ analysis of our global situation indicates that conditions of serious
scarcity are likely to impact in coming decades. Such conditions will have the
valuable effect of forcing us to come together to cooperatively organise our
own local economic affairs, and this will help to create familiarity, mutual
concern, responsibility and community. (Of course if the coming difficultirs
are severe, it is possible that people will be unable to come together and that
conflict and breakdown will be more likely.)
Dependence.
In The Simpler
Way our mutual dependence would generate powerful bonds and quality of life
benefits. Any individualÕs quality
of life would depend clearly on whether his or her local ecosystems, windmills,
economy, water supply, workshops, committees, working bees, concerts etc. were
functioning wellÉand they would not do so unless all contributed
conscientiously and willingly. No individual would be able to live well on
their own, and there would be no sense in trying to get rich or beat
others. We would all be very
clearly aware that we depended entirely on each other and only if we share,
come to working bees, and be responsible and conscientious citizens will our
localities thrive.
ÒWelfareÓ.
In the present
Òsocial-democraticÓ systems of the rich countries people compete to get and
take as much as possible, a few succeed most and become obscenely rich while
most struggle and remain pretty poor.
Then those with incomes pay taxes to enable some of the wealth to be
redistributed to those at the bottom.
In the process the most successful few take livelihoods from many
others; e.g., many little shops are wiped out as supermarket chains take their
business. Therefore there is a
strong tendency for the numbers of people needing welfare to increase. Even in the richest societies large
numbers are dumped and ÒexcludedÓ, without employment, in lousy jobs, homeless
etc. The avoidable economic cost (e.g. in bureaucrats and social workers), let
alone the social cost, is enormous.
The Simpler Way
scraps this entire concept of ÒwelfareÓ as compensation. In The Simpler Way, income, inequality
of income and redistribution of income are not important. Instead, it ensures that all have easy
and direct access to the things that enable a high quality of life. Can enjoyable life is not about having
big enough incomes to purchase all they want or need from the normal
economy. It is about not having
many material demands in the first place, and more importantly about
establishing a new cooperative and socially controlled economy which provides
well for all in the locality, including basic goods and a livelihood, and
community and abundant leisure and cultural activities.
Thus it is
possible for people with extremely low monetary incomes to be very ÒrichÓ,
i.e., to have access to the things that make their lives very satisfying, such
as freedom from insecurity, strong community and support, worthwhile work, a
role in running the community, great concerts and festivals, much time for
learning and creating.
The
irrelevance of wealth.
Firstly, monetary wealth is
not important. The things that are
important for a satisfying life include,
Enough good food, shelter,
clothes.
Good health.
Safety/security, from poverty,
violenceÉ
Family, friends, community, comrades.
ÒWorkÓ that is enjoyable,
valued, valuable.
Time, slow pace.
Purpose; things to do.
Creativity; arts, crafts,
gardening, cookingÉ
Being respected, for oneÕs
contribution.
Personal growth; sense of becoming wiser better person as
time goes by.
Pride in oneÕs society.
Sense of control;
participating in governing oneÕs community.
Sense that the world is well,
that others are not in difficulties.
These conditions do not
require monetary wealth; all people could experience them in a society with
very low GDP per person.
Secondly, wealth impoverishes! It is not good for you! Wealth debauches,
desensitises. The more one has and
the more one can consume, the less one appreciates the value of things,
especially simpler things.
Consider Kerry Packer, a billionaire who gambled millions of dollars at
a single sitting. If thatÕs what it takes to make you feel goodÉ
Wealth distracts you from
the things that matter. There are
far more important things to focus on than getting rich and purchasing. Wealth interferes with identity. Your worth, status, the kind of person
you are in your own eyes and those of others, should not depend on how much
wealth you have. It should depend
on how nice, resilient, kind, thoughtful, generous... you are.
ÒHe is
so impoverished, poor. All he has
is his wealth.Ó
The important sources of wealth are public.
In affluent
consumer society an individualÕs capacity to have enjoyable life depends
primarily on the capacity to purchase and privately own or consume things. In the new society a high quality of
life for all will come mostly from public things, such as, the beautiful
landscape with its rich variety of gardens, farms, little firms, forests, the
friendly community, the festivals, the free concerts and plays, he help and
advice generously given, the institutions such as the community workshops, the
working bees, the sharing, the art and artists, and especially the cultural
atmosphere. These are the things
that make a society rich, and that enrich the lives of its individual people.
In The Simpler Way we will all be very conscious of the importance of
contributing to our community and its public wealth, knowing that when we do
this we are enriching ourselves as well as everyone else.
ÒMy garden is one kilometre across. It is crammed with every imaginable
kind of plant, with ornaments, waterfalls, dells, pergodas, giant forests,
nooks, ponds, stonework, orchards, fountains, statues, bamboo thickets, urns,
elvesÉIt is kept in immaculate shape by a large team of fanatical gardeners,
who think and plan and fuss and work harder than any slaves could. And a large part of their motivation is
to create and maintain this beautiful landscape for me and others to
enjoy. I can just walk through it
any time and find so many things, fruit, vistas, flowers, that I canÕt recall
ever seeing before. I donÕt own
it. I could never afford to make
or buy such a garden, but thatÕs not important. I have it because itÕs my village.Ó
Synergism.
In a good society there are mutually
reinforcing effects, positive feedbacks, É synergism. However in consumer
society it is the opposite. For
instant, it is very competitive so if you beat someone to a job or a deal heÕs
resentful and the relation between the two of you is damaged, and then he wonÕt
be inclined to help you or be nice to you, or to others because heÕll be in a
bad mood. But in The Simpler
Way all the incentives and the rewards are the other way around. If I help you
get what you want, or do things that make our institutions function well and
enable you to thrive, then youÕre more happy and therefore more inclined to be
nice and helpful to me and to others, and if youÕre nice to someone else then
that person is more likely to be nice to me. So goodness multiplies. If I show you how to grow good strawberries then there will
be more people in town who can provide us all with good strawberries. But in consumer society, if I show you
how to grow good strawberries you might then put me out of business.
A vital goal in a good
society must be to keep in place and to foster those conditions and
arrangements that require and reward cooperation, so that all
things flourish. Synergism
canÕt thrive in a competitive situation.
It flourishes only in an economy of giving. It dies in an economy of
getting. Consumer society has an
economy where individuals try to get things, income, goods, wealth,
prestige, property, power.
Goodness canÕt multiply there.
But when I give you something the value received is more than
what I give, because my giving makes you happy and then you treat others well
and those people in turn are more likely to do nice things for me. Miserable, stingy, warped, narrow
conventional economic theory canÕt deal with that. ItÕs only good for accounting the zero-sum amounts of money
wealth.
The
importance of collectivism.
In a good society the ideas
and goals that preoccupy people must be predominantly collective. In our present society they are
predominantly and increasingly individualistic or selfish. In a good society much time and energy
could go into individual goals but the main concerns must be things like the
welfare of all, the public good, our public institutions, standards, morality,
justice, and pride in oneÕs society.
The
importance of self-government.
In a good society there must
be self-government by willing, responsible citizens. This is the supreme
principle of ÒpoliticsÓ and of the history of government. Allowing ourselves to be governed by
leaders, whether kings, dictators or elected representatives, is a dreadful
mistake. Humans will not
have achieved social maturity, and indeed are not likely to survive, if they do
not become capable of and fiercely determined to take responsibility for
governing themselves through the direct participation of all citizens in public
assemblies. ItÕs no good if governors, no matter how well meaning, govern
passive and uninvolved masses; thatÕs a recipe for trouble. In addition, itÕs The ancient Greeks
understood this and saw involvement in making social decisions as important in
the education and personal development of a mature, responsible citizen.
In the coming era of intense
scarcity where states cannot be large, communities will have to govern
themselves. They will not flourish
or even survive unless the right decisions are made, and these can only come
from the participation of all who have to be content with what was decided and
who must work willing to achieve group goals.
Organisation.
A good society is a matter
of organisation. It is not
a matter of technology, GDP, wealth, etc.
Some societies that are very ÒpoorÓ or ÒprimitiveÓ have been pretty good
(e.g., Ladakh, Kerala, many tribes.)
ln a good society the existing resources, especially labour,
skill, time, care, rationalityÉare applied to meeting needs and
providing all with a high quality of life. In our society many suffer boredom, deprivation, lack of
careÉwithin metres of many others who are watching TV four hours every
day. Many people need things
produced yet suffer unemployment.
In other words, things are not well organised; existing productive
capacity is not geared to meeting needs. In The Simpler Way there is constant
intensive concern to identify needs and resources and bring them together. In consumer-capitalist society this is
not done well and all suffer the myth that only if much more ÒwealthÓ is
created will there be enough to meet unmet needsÉa recipe that is a delight to
the rich and the business class.
Liberating,
releasing, harnessing up potential.
When social
resources are organised well vast productive capacity and much more importantly
enjoyment and personal growth, are enabled. Those people now watching TV four hours a day have huge
capacities for play writing, helping, creating, teaching, supporting,
governing, growingÉbut none of these are exercised when attention is
preoccupied with trivial distractions.
People have within them the capacity to create miracles, yet they sit in
traffic jams and stupefied before
the television set for many hours every day. Any neighbourhood has immense power, talent, labour,
knowledge, that could be put to work to generate a marvellous quality of life
for all, yet it is not applied to these ends. In a satisfactory society things would be organised in ways
that release and harness these capacities, for the good of individuals
themselves and for the good of others.
Thus the tragedy of consumer society is highlighted; eve