This is not to say that ideas in politics are necessarily a bad thing but they need to have what neuro-theorists call 'intentionality', they need to be about something. I'm not sure what Purnell was saying was about anything other than the need to have something to say at Brown's wake. If equality of capability means eliminating child poverty and massively improving state schools - and I think it does - then say so. But, I suppose, he can't say that because that's what Blair said and he failed on both counts and, for good measure, also increased inequality.
My point is that 'improving state schools' is the beginning of a political idea in that it is the prelude to specific actions whereas 'equality of capability', though a noble and interesting concept, does not. Saying the latter is a political idea is like saying quantum theory was a great way of building computers. There's a link but it's too tenuous to be meaningful. The word 'political' means something and it's not the same as 'political philosophy'.
In that context, I don't think Purnell was saying anything at all. There is only one issue for any future government, however noble its aspirations. This is how to make our economy work without repeating the fatal mistake of relying on financial services and with an appalling burden of debt. This is a very practical matter which Peter Mandelson, once the great virtualiser, seems to have grasped. All else is arm-waving and further flapdoodle.
A blog about, among other things, imaginary ideas - What ifs? and Imagine thats. What if photographs looked nothing like what we see with our eyes? Imagine that the Berlin Wall had never come down. What if we were the punchline of an interminable joke? All contributions welcome.
"This is how to make our economy work without repeating the fatal mistake of relying on financial services and with an appalling burden of debt. This is a very practical matter "
ReplyDeleteIt is both a practical and a theoretical matter. You don't think the economy works at the moment (you are not alone), but that is only because you have a social and political theory about what economies are for If you had a different theoretical apparatus you might think the economy was doing just fine. All this macho Talebish anti-ideas stuff reminds me of Frasier's 'practical man' scoffing at the theorists in his tribe: 'all those big ideas are fine for you navel gazers, but I am just a simple man and I know that whenever I sacrifice a chicken at dusk the sun pops up in the morning, so I will plug away at what works while you lot chunter about the theory'.
Existence precedes essence.
ReplyDeleteThe world may be undetermined by theory but it is now defined by branding.
ReplyDeletePurnell is looking for the next big leftish 'idea' which will be used to market the message that (a) we're different from that other lot, nicer and more exciting and (b) it's all going to be different this time. (C.f. the Third Way).
Leszek Kolakowski died a few days ago (more here). I think we may have come to the end of an epic era in politics, or more precisely, political thought. It's now about re-packaging. I think you're right in that it should be about product.
It's all religion's fault, John. No really, I think a key to it is:
ReplyDelete1) starting with a value (equality, liberty, economic freedom, 'equality of capability', secular rationalism, even religious piety) and seeking to arrange political and cultural institutions/systems to maximise that value
versus
2) starting with the political and cultural institutions/systems you have and seeking to improve, or at least not worsen, where you can.
If you divvy it up that way, the funny thing is that socialists, neocons, Brights and Islamists are all in the same category.
(Anglicanism is the best religion because it's in category 2)
Brit, you seem to think I was having a go at religion, but I wasn't. I was just pointing out that everything is underpinned by a theory, even (perhaps especially) those positions that affect to be anti-theory.
ReplyDeleteBut why should an atheist (which I assume is what you emeant by 'bright') belong to one of your categories rather than another. Have you really never met a conservative atheist? I am surprised.
Ah John, it just a bit of snarkasm, based on your history of commenting.
ReplyDeleteOf course I don't mean 'atheist' by 'Bright'; I mean Bright.
"Of course I don't mean 'atheist' by 'Bright'; I mean Bright."
ReplyDeleteOh, you mean 'Daniel Dennett', then.
Well I was really thinking of Bjorn from Abba, as it happens.
ReplyDeleteBelladonna is also a recreational drug, death or dreams is quite apt really.
ReplyDeleteDo you think the public are sober enough to want to understand the truth? Sentiment and psychology are big components of the economy, (this is why economics will never be a science)
How do you tell the public the hard facts without extinguishing hope that these problems can be solved, without the gloom feeding more gloom? especially to a populus brought up with the state as a surrogate family.
This is so very true, in the way that many bad films have great premises, or great art is often about execution not concept.
ReplyDeleteWhat goes around comes around, started with a reference to Mandelson, thence to Belladonna. No nightshade as deadly as Peter who, gazing into the crystal ball, has seen his own end approaching.
ReplyDeleteSuccessful business follows intelligent leaders creating the correct basic conditions required and then walking away. Hasn't happened, apart from a short period under Maggie, for one hundred and fifty years. We have had a decade of meddling by fifth rate politicians and their acolytes in the civil service and academia.
@Brit
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"1) starting with a value (equality, liberty, economic freedom, 'equality of capability', secular rationalism, even religious piety) and seeking to arrange political and cultural institutions/systems to maximise that value
versus
2) starting with the political and cultural institutions/systems you have and seeking to improve, or at least not worsen, where you can."
Brit, how can you 'improve' things without a value-laden yardstick to define improvement? Even if you try and leave things the same, you're still presupposing the value of the status quo.
I think a value-laden premise is inevitable, it's just subjective; where the socialists, neocons, Brights and Islamists you mention go wrong is in failing to recognise the inevitable duality at the heart of the relative world, meaning that we must exist inside the tension between two imperatives, leaning first one way and then the other, depending on taste and circumstance.
The immoderate hate that contingency, they want definitive solutions for all time, but only the _general_ moral questions are eternal, the _specific_ moral answers come and go.
In practice, as far as government policy is concerned, it's best to try to balance equality and inequality and not treat one as a fetish object in absolute terms.
Yeah, nobody's saying there's no such thing as a value.
ReplyDeleteSean said:
ReplyDeleteDo you think the public are sober enough to want to understand the truth? Sentiment and psychology are big components of the economy
1. Peoplee always try to avoid the truth, cause when you have not faced it for a while at first it hurts.
2.Sentiment myning is getting huge, amazing, I think it is because you can get marketing info witjout the need to get personal with the possible client (great idea)
Theory is inevitable and ubiquitous. There's no getting away from it.
ReplyDeleteBut I still think too much respect is being paid to what's going on here. They're looking for marketing ideas not theories.
Last time this happened they came up with the Third Way. This was utter tosh (c.f. serious political philosophers such as Kolakowski and others). More a rhetorical sleight of hand brushed up a bit by Giddens (a sociologist, spit) and rolled out as a brand.
A practical focus on real outcomes seems as far away as ever.
Bryan:
ReplyDeleteForgive this OT promotion but please support Man in a Shed’s “Silly Week” next week. Logos are available at his site.
Brit, I didn't suggest you are denying values. You described option 1 as "starting with a value" and implied the superiority of option 2, as though option 2 does not involve starting with a value.
ReplyDeleteMy point was that it is impossible to engage in meliorative activity without a value-laden premise.
We all have our favourite values, of course,
ReplyDeleteBut what is the cart, and what is the horse?
Perhaps we would be best letting politicians select the "ideas" or vision - such as equality of capability and then leave the execution of their delivery to people with experience. It seems very unlikely that our current system for selecting our political masters will result in people who can be the CEO for their particular department.
ReplyDelete