One change I notice since I was a nipper is that we no longer hear about people being ‘non-political’. In my young days it was fairly commonplace to suggest that ‘non-political’ people are typically conservative, but nowadays we’re used to conservatives being as political as anybody.
It is true that we still have rhetoric about ‘shared values’ or ‘what unites us is more important than what divides us’, especially at times of crisis – disasters, terrorist outrages, tragedies, and so on. But rather than being in any sense conservative (or Conservative) this rhetoric has the feel of shared seemly performance as distinct from shared values. Precisely the act of making an appearance in the ‘public realm’ that the social theorist Hannah Arendt talked about 60 years ago. What is more doubtful is whether we become free by making such appearances as Arendt thought we do. It is an open question whether members of Camden Borough Council are acting freely in evacuating people from the Chilcot tower blocks when some of the residents think they are just reacting so as to be seen to be doing something about fire safety.
At least that is very serious. When it comes to TV images, with even Jeremy Corbyn trimming his beard or Emmanuel Macron appearing in smart suits, I wonder whether a resurrected Ms Arendt would just accept the joke is on her, and laugh.
The ‘UKippers’ claim, with apparent justification, to have won the arguments about viability of the European Union and the UK’s ability to survive outside European integration. But they are losing the other argument that Dr. Owen and the SDP lost in the 1980s, namely, about it being possible to be a successful (British) patriotic movement without being Conservatives.
Claire Foges is a Conservative, but backs her ‘Buy British’ appeal with the distinction between patriotism and nationalism or xenophobia familiar in academic arguments about citizenship and ‘republican virtues’. That distinction is a genuine one in the abstract, but all too often politically ineffectual. The last thing Citizen Claire herself wants is for her patriotic appeal to be politically exclusive. Yet the political logic of UKIP’s fading after Brexit is that ‘Buy British’ will turn into a Conservative identity.
Strangely, Citizen Claire’s dilemma arises from the repeated failure of the political Left ever since the French Revolution to avoid matching a demand for inclusive political community with the psychological reality that communal identities on which patriotism depends require separation from those outside. Patriots worldwide regularly try to avoid thus fostering enemies on the lines argued by the fascist Carl Schmitt (successfully more often with sport and entertainment than with politics or economics), but the Schmitt menace always lurks behind the scenes. And the British Conservative Party has a facility for making enemies beyond that of the British themselves.
At my age I could just fade out quietly with my pension and health benefit, while hoping there’s still enough funding for my future survival as a member of the aging population. Yet somehow I carry on imagining I have something to offer. Why? It’s partly personal – with no children I don’t want my mother’s efforts for me wasted. But then observing the world suggests some questions to raise.
Admiration for public-spirited and patriotic people is as old as humanity’s first gathering into clans and tribes, with the dream of converting us from self-indulgent consumers into active citizens being only the latest variation on the theme. Unfortunately, there are as many ways of being public-spirited and a citizen as there are of moving around. No doubt supporters of the current wave of nationalist populisms believe themselves to be the very model of patriotic, active citizens. Their liberal or left antagonists are just as sure of their concern for the public welfare. So the question arises: What should we be citizens of? Or, what welfare should we take care of?
Closely related is the current fashion for everyone from Corbyn to Erdogan to be challenging the ‘establishment’ on behalf of the people. I can’t help wondering who are the establishment? Maybe Wall Street denizens are beginning to feel just a little lonely?
Amongst all the current talk about ‘populism’, worries about immigration, jobs and the rest, there are now warning signs of a new arrogance amongst certain journalists and politicians (not Donald Trump). Besides the intolerance of some ‘Brexiteers’ within the Conservative Party – including toward ‘Remoaners’ within their own ranks – we see sneering references to districts like north London or the north-east and west coasts of America where soft-headed liberal lefties are supposed to be concentrated.
When reviewing a book like Utopia for Realists, proposing a 15-hour week and no borders, it’s easy for Iain Martin to be scornful (in parts I agree with him). But the real challenge for populists like Martin, or the ordinary ‘Somewheres’ David Goodhart (who is not at all arrogant) is talking about, has never come from liberal lefties who might buy Utopia for Realists or their equivalents in past eras. It comes from someone like the German authoritarian Carl Schmitt (1888-1985). The basic idea behind constitutional government, international law, and the ‘liberal’ tradition from which they sprang, is that we will have opposing interests and disagree, but that we need to get along with a measure of mutual tolerance and respect despite our oppositions. Schmitt, who had witnessed the Weimar Republic after the First World War, and, as he saw it, the failure of liberal jurisprudence, saw matters differently. He argued that political communities develop on a basis of friends and enemies, with outsiders being potential enemies. Also, since friend/enemy groupings form within states as well as between them, Schmitt prescribed a strong authoritarian state to handle the conflicts and impose its settlement on them.
We should remember the profound difference between someone who disagrees with you, or has a disputed claim against you, and an enemy who seeks to destroy you. Controlling mass immigration is fine, but leaving destitute refugees who may come to hate you is something else.
One other point. Have populists noticed that by distancing himself from the GCHQ spying story, assuring Chancellor Merkel that he accepts free trade, and negotiating with Congress on replacing Obamacare, President Trump has already started behaving more like an ordinary politician?
Despite being past the 65 landmark, I haven’t yet settled to just reminiscing or pottering about in the garden. I leave it to others to say whether I’m self-centred, but health and narrowly focused campaigns around me again seem to leave me having to choose my own projects existentialist style.
As I look around, I see democratic citizenship working differently in the 21st century from what theorists from Aristotle to date have imagined. Even when we are being patriotic, and/or participating in the community and being public-spirited, we’re constantly taking different positions on welfare, migration, capitalism and markets, security, women leaning in or leaning out, green energy, robots (and robot citizens?), gene editing, religious education, military power, ……., all shown by the societies or groups we join, the parties and candidates we vote for, the religions (and movements within religions) we adhere to, and indeed the careers we follow. In all these things we are acting socially, just as the citizenship enthusiasts say we do, and yet we still end up choosing what to believe in and how to find meaning in our lives. In a bizarre way, Sartre was right after all with his notion of ‘practical ensembles’ mixing freedom with social action. Sartre’s metaphysics may be rubbish, but his 1960s and 1970s theorizing works out as what we’re all doing now. Whether we’re protectionists trying to hold onto our (and our workmates) jobs, or charity workers trying to help dispossessed refugees, we’re all in those practical ensembles – having chosen which ones to join.
It is now more than a generation since the comic science fiction writer John Sladek published his stories about the adventures of Roderick the Robot and envisaged a campaign for rights for robots. But now, in an age when radical democrats plead for us to be citizens rather than consumers (and criticise capitalism for making us too much the latter) and conservatives plead for us to be responsible and self-reliant, the idea that artificial intelligence (AI) might reach the point where robots are entitled to citizens’ rights is actually being seriously debated in academic and even governmental circles. The issue has just been given new force by the controversy over robotics and automation being largely responsible for the loss of blue collar jobs and pressure on wages leading in turn to current political upheavals.
The last point poses a dilemma for humans: as consumers we are happy to snap up the cheap products turned out – not least by Americans and Chinese – with the aid of robots, whilst as citizens we cannot make up our minds whether we want to go all out on robotics for the sake of national and social prosperity (and therefore standing) or whether we want it curbed for employment protection and maybe social stability. That, in addition to the usual pattern that humans do whatever technology makes possible for them to do, suggests we will plunge ahead since we are certain as consumers and merely confused as citizens. But for purposes of AI (and machine consciousness) citizenship itself may be the final test. Stephen Rainey of De Montfort University suggests taking an interest is crucial for citizenship, but would it be possible for a machine to take an interest without being capable of defying its programmers and being willing to do so if it sees fit? That is to say, we might have to decide that robots are entitled to citizens’ rights once they start raising objections to what we tell them to do. Then again, they might attain the dream of active citizenship more fully than humans because they would not need to sleep at night.
I am not usually that big on mourning public figures, and am an atheist to boot, but I am saddened by the untimely death of Jill Saward, survivor of the Ealing vicarage rape in 1986, at 51. I usually – not invariably – supported her various stands on treatment of sexual assault victims, and admired her courage. In point of fact, her Christian faith and involvement with Christian communities seems to have been a mixed blessing in Saward’s own life, but for myself as a long-time student of sexual shame and status related to marriage prospects for women (as well as modern status forms attached to education, employment, consumer goods, etc.,) I reckon Jill Saward deserves a significant place in world history in her own right.
Thinking of Christians and their confusions in a sinful world turns the mind also to the issue of persecution of Christians in the Levant and the Near East. The Syrian war has raised an interesting new question here: Now that Russia is a leading player in the region, and the Russian Orthodox church has returned to a powerful place, will Russia take a lead in protecting these threatened Christians (besides backing Assad)? I await developments.
I partially agree with the Philosophy Tube speaker linking Donald Trump’s rhetoric with the German writer Carl Schmitt’s characterisation of politics as being about friend and enemy, i.e., as antagonistic. But it seems to me that there is a general drift towards a more hostile form of politics in many countries currently, and in the USA for at least 50 years since the upheavals of the 1960s. Trump is far from an isolated phenomenon, being rather a new episode in a long running saga. As Philosophy Tube is well aware, it is no accident that Carl Schmitt was a fierce critic of liberalism and liberal conceptions of constitutional government and law even before he became a Nazi in the 1930s. For, if the notion of politics as antagonistic is taken to the level of friend and enemy we say goodbye to the ordinary idea in constitutional democracies of dealing with supporters and opponents. There is still antagonism there, but it is limited – you may not be friends with those who support your case, you are simply pleased to have their support. Likewise, opponents remain part of society and, indeed, you might even be friends with them on a personal level. But friends and enemies will have to actually make peace before they could accept one another.
Philosophy Tube is generally correct to say that movements of the fascistic or ‘hard’ Right will not recognise an enemy’s right to exist (mainstream conservatives can be different), but overlooks the comparison between the Left’s willingness to accept enemies who would give up power and join them and the pattern of religious conversion or even imperialists from the Romans to date who will allow others to join them – on their terms. The complaint that (philosophical) liberalism does not recognise the antagonistic nature of politics comes from thinkers of the Left, such as Chantal Mouffe, as well as from those of the Right such as Schmitt. But especially when ‘liberalism’ becomes applied in the shape of constitutional law and government, it is probably more accurate to say it seeks to keep the antagonism limited to the level of supporters and opponents, rather than escalating to the level of friends and enemies. It’s all about keeping the peace.
Lively argument is one thing, but what does that have to do with the drearily predictable responses to the death of Castro? If the comparisons between Castro, Pinochet, and other such phenomena tell us anything, it’s how unwilling our elites are to learn. In particular, learn lessons which might be summarised as: (a) Brutal dictators can sometimes perform valuable services for their people; (b) They remain brutal dictators nonetheless; (c) Whatever their ideology, brutal dictators can all exploit the radical incoherence of the so-called ‘international community’ on even matters of life and death; (d) In the Western case incoherence extends even to the definition of Western interests, and therefore to what we expect politicians, diplomats, soldiers, and indeed, businesspeople and charities to do on our behalf; (e) Moral education, including of the next generation, cannot but be confused by all of this.
If the elites (and anti-elitists) were to show some guts, and begin thinking seriously about these lessons and debating them honestly, I would start having more respect for our culture and feeling more hopeful for the future.
I’m surprised, but not that surprised, at the prospect of President Trump for the next four years at least. No sense in speculating on the practical outcomes now – I have my worries, and a few hopes. The essential lesson of recent encounters with democracy is that cultural liberals (and economic liberals where protectionism and nationalism are concerned) need to cut out the very idea of ‘keeping up with the times’, and think hard about what’s actually wrong with conservatism. Why should we not all adopt conservative values as many ordinary people think they can?
In the last resort, the issue can always come down to keeping the peace. As victor, Trump has made his effort to reach out – to all Americans and the rest of the world. I do not doubt he means it. But the devils are in the details. Those conflicts over immigration, trade and jobs, healthcare, abortion, global power politics, religion, and so on, cannot be talked away; they have to be worked away. Political, religious, and moral conservatives typically want peace and stability. Indeed, they don’t want the turmoil, fragmentation, and indeed warfare which has fed so much of ‘modernisation’. But with their very reliance on the traditions and identity of Our Group, Our Nation, Our Family, etc., they encourage the very separations and divisions which break things up. If the whole world could have a single conservative ‘identity’ there might be no problem. But neither politician nor academic sociologist seems to find that possible.
At least liberal opinion is not tied in principle to excluding the Outsiders, however much of an In Group liberals often seem to be. That is why liberalisms keep popping up; not because this is the 21st century rather than the Middle Ages.