Misusing the i-word

Some interesting thoughts and counter-thoughts from the always highly readable Chris Dillow and Matt Sinclair. Plus my own comments. It's all just opinions, of course.

Chris questions whether attitudes to crime can be affected by the implicit moral values conveyed by the media.

I reckon there are (at least) four reasons why a black youngster might rationally choose a career in crime or music over a conventional professional career ... the thing about these four factors is that they can't be solved by giving young black men good role models. Indeed, quite the opposite.

Matt counters.

While criminals and pornographers do form their own communities that attempt to make up for their shunning by respectable types they will always be aware that they are somehow outside the community proper. The only way this changes is if, for example, the career of a pornographer becomes more socially acceptable. A successful community won't let this happen for a criminal lifestyle.

That I not only choose to accept far lower material standards of living [by not pursuing crime] but do so without a moment's hesitation is the power of social standards. No law or subsidy can push people towards socially useful pursuits as effectively. Breaking those social standards down, as far too many left-wing movements have, is therefore extremely dangerous. The breakdown in standards leads, rapidly, to a wider social breakdown as choosing a civilised way of life is then not the rational choice for far too large a body of people. That is why, for all the repressive effects that social mores can have, I respect their vital importance. It is this insight, more than anything, that causes me to describe myself as a conservative these days.

I agree it seems likely that ethical values are picked up from others, as well as from cultural output. Everyone has an internalised value system about how approvable/disapprovable any given behaviour is, which to some extent looks to the value systems of others. Television and movies convey implicit moral values and ideologies, and it seems implausible that, where these differ from the viewer's existing ones, some "averaging" doesn't result.

Chris responds to Matt:

I agree that standards matter. And I agree they have broken down. But I'm not sure this justifies being a small-c conservative. And it certainly doesn't justify being a big-C conservative, in three ways.

And here's where things seem to get a little tendentious.

Conservatism, especially in its Thatcherite form, celebrated greed and wealth, however acquired.

Now I know the idea that "Thatcherism celebrated greed" has practically become dogma, for people of all political persuasions. But I would love to hear some actual arguments for it. The fact that we had a bit of a backlash during the eighties against the anti-capitalist ideology of Old Labour, and that this coincided with an economic boom, may tell one something about the prevailing ethos of that period, but doesn't in itself prove anything about Thatcherism, let alone Conservatism.

The individualism which Thatcherism unleashed can easily spill over into narcissism.

I have the same problem with this. Yes, everyone now takes it as read that Thatcherism "unleashed individualism". But I'm surprised that Chris isn't more critical of this knee-jerk assumption. What is meant by "individualism" anyway? Self-reliance? Aggressiveness? Independence of thought? How were any of these "unleashed" by 80s conservatism?

And linking individualism to "narcissism" seems not to be adding much more than insult to the analysis, it's such a vague concept. I believe research suggests that self-esteem is positively correlated with things like helpfulness, and negatively with aggression. If we mean the kind of behaviour displayed on "reality" shows then it's questionable whether this has anything to do with "individualism" at all. People expressing themselves in dumb ways for the benefit of an audience is arguably a form of anti-individualism, because it encourages everyone to regard themselves as nothing more than what the audience (society) sees. It is, in effect, an assertion of (public) appearance over (private) content.

The term "individualism" has become ridiculously debased, and is now used to refer to people who think it's okay to be rude, stroppy or aggressive. Stephen Pollard doesn't use it himself to describe folk who behave without thought for others in a concert hall, but I can think of several mainstream commentators who would invoke the i-word for precisely this kind of thing.

The cure for mediocracy is more mediocracy?

Outside the blogosphere, the intellectual world seems to divide roughly into two camps.

1. The "optimists"
Those who think everything in our hitech-massified-yoofy-cheapo-liberated world is lovely.

2. The handwringers
Those who see something rotten in our society. We're unhappy, we're bored, we're angry, we're overwhelmed, we're mentally ill. The cause? Why, capitalism, of course. What else could it be?



"Capitalism" is such an easy, handwaving target. You don't even need to define your terms. The ability to get wasted every night on the tiles? Capitalism. (Not the ceaseless promotion of dumbed down mass culture by the il-liberal elite.) The increasing dominance of large corporations? Capitalism. (Not the snowballing red tape strangling smaller businesses.) The pathologisation of everyday life? Capitalism, of course — via evil drug companies. (Not the monopoly power of medical guilds, buttressed by state-sponsored technocracy.)

The other easy target is "individualism". The myth that we live in an "individualistic" age is one of the few pieces of phoney nonsense that unites Left and Right. (I mean the genuine Right, not the current Conservatives who, on the face of it, are as Left as New Labour.) So both Richard Layard and Melanie Phillips*, for example, writing from apparently different vantage points, assert that too much stress has been placed on the "individual".




To repeat myself from an earlier post: “individualism” used to mean self-reliance and respect for the individual, now it is incorrectly used to refer to rudeness, and spending power for the masses. People being able to express themselves in terms of clothes and hairstyles, in a culture which regards it as "fun" to humiliate and degrade others, is not individualism. The "questioning" and "scrutiny" which is sometimes attributed to our supposedly oh-so-critical postmodern world is largely confined to things which are pro-individual, e.g. capitalism. A citizenship which accepts that nanny state interventions are (a) ethical, and (b) likely to work, can hardly be described as “critical”.

Want to become a media intellectual and get your articles in the broadsheets? Write a book blaming all our ills on capitalism/individualism. We have already had Oliver James's Affluenza — nicely fisked by Tim Worstall. Now it's the turn of Barbara Ehrenreich, jumping on the communitarian bandwagon started by Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone. Ehrenreich seems to think we need less self, and more surrender to the group. It's sixties hippyism meets Maoist brainwashing.

A distinction typically not made by these anti-individualism critics is between community (small scale social formations) and Society (everyone in the country, or even the world). The two are not the same; in fact, their loyalties run in different directions. Contrary to what might be thought (given the rhetoric), the political Left — obsessed with Society as they are — actually come out more hostile to community than the Right. They don't like the family, they don't like private associations, they don't like small businesses. They want only one kind of social group to have power: the Collective.

* E.g. in All Must Have Prizes

Today's reading

... is on the subject of reductionism as applied to human beings. I.e. having a model of the individual as a somewhat deluded robot. (Question for the gifted* — which current television documentary series draws on this theme?)

from Mediocracy: Inversions and Deceptions in an Egalitarian Culture (p.100)



* The "gifted", according to a recent government definition, are the top ten per cent of the population.

Reflections on "chippiness"

Further to a comment on "Comprehensives: worse than prison", inspired by a disagreement between Daniel Finkelstein and Chris Dillow.

What follows is pure speculation. This is what I think are the psychodynamics of so-called “chippiness” (aka “having a chip on your shoulder”).

1) Something bad has happened to you, against your wishes, which did not happen to a significant number of other people in your peer group. E.g. your parents dumped you, or you were sent to a comprehensive school, or you went to a not-very-prestigious university, or you were at one of the “also ran” Oxbridge colleges, or you didn’t get a good degree so you couldn’t get to do research.

2) The experience made you feel unimportant, inferior, or otherwise bad, and you suffered as a result. You wish it hadn’t happened.

3) When you interact with those members of your peer group who didn’t suffer what you did, you observe they are better set up psychologically.

4) Deep down, you feel this is unfair, and you feel angry and resentful.

5) However, you are not sure whether these feelings are socially legitimated. They probably aren’t. In other words, it isn’t socially acceptable to mind about the handicaps you were given. (As it has become partially acceptable to mind about certain specific ones, e.g. being given a hard time as a member of an ethnic minority.)

6) This gives you a conflict. You can’t exactly stop yourself minding. But do you allow yourself to be aware of it? Do you allow yourself to express it? With whom precisely should you be angry? “The system”?

7) Typically, therefore, you have the resentment, but it’s semi-suppressed and unarticulated. Thus the key behavioural symptom of classic “chippiness”: being grumpy or sulky, but in a defeated, screwed up sort of way.

8) There may, however, be a socially acceptable outlet for your resentment, albeit involving a certain amount of displacement. If the subclass of your peer group who didn’t suffer what you suffered can be identified as fair game for ridicule, hatred, contempt, scapegoating or other socially legitimated resentment (e.g. as representing “social injustice”) this gives you a way of satisfying your aggressive reaction. You go in for hating those who had the “privilege” you didn’t. This is a bit harder in the case where they represent the majority, but not impossible. (Think e.g. black vs. white.)

9) Alternatively, there is the reaction of denial. You pretend you didn’t really suffer, you don’t care, you’re quite well off thank you very much, you have nothing to envy the other group for, they’re a bunch of idiots anyway, etc. Seeming like you’re indifferent can be a bit tricky to pull off, however, if these reactions are expressed in an aggressive tone.

10) The counter-response is also of interest. Those who didn’t suffer can feel smug about their fortunate status, and can bask in the knowledge that you can’t complain without opening yourself up to ridicule. They can pretend their advantages are not really that great. “Oh, you went to a state school? I’m sure that was fine. Myself, I went to Harrow, but it was pretty awful. (Smirk.)”

11) Or if you do look at all sulky, and don’t take enough care to suppress your symptoms, they will accuse you of being “chippy”. Which, of course, is really a sort of jeering insult. What it’s typically saying is something like: “You’re pathetic. Look at you. You (e.g.) went to a crap school, so you’re second rate. Everyone knows (even if they pretend not to) that this makes you sub par in all sorts of ways. And you’re not even tough enough to keep your feelings hidden. Ha ha ha.”

12) What the “privileged” like less, I think, is what a psychiatrist (well, the old-fashioned kind) might say was the healthy reaction. Accepting that you were given a handicap (however awful it seems to do so), but in a spirit of defiance. Not regarding it as your fault, therefore not feeling ashamed about it, even if other people look like they want you to. Feeling it shouldn’t have happened to you, you deserved better. Not hating those who didn’t suffer your adversity, because they are not the ones to blame. (*)

I’d like to close this meditation with an excerpt from Henley’s Invictus.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody but unbowed.

The poem expresses a psychological position which Celia Green has called “centralisation”.

(*) Unless, of course, they are.