A
re
fla
t
fiona
fl
soc
fie
ty
M
fichae
fl
Rus
t
fin
Human
re
fla
t
fionsh
fips
canno
t
be
encompassed
w
fi
th
fin
a
narrow
,
marke
t-exchange
wor
fld
v
fiew
.
N
eoflfiberaflfism has as one offits basfic presupposfitfionsthefideathatthe human worfldfis composed essentfiaflfly offindfivfiduafls, who shoufld asfar as possfibfle befreeto makethefir own chofices andto advancethefir own finterests,fin pursufit of whateverthey may deemthefir happfinessto be. To be sure, findfivfiduafls are expectedto avofidfinterferfing wfiththefreedom of others, and systems of morafl andflegafl reguflatfion exfistto ensurethat suchflfimfits and protectfions are enforced. Butthese are seen as appflyfingto what are essentfiaflflyfindfivfiduafls, actfing wfithout referenceto a wfider socfiafl context.In reaflfity, of course,findfivfiduafls do not pursuethefirfinterestsfinfisoflatfionfrom, or evenfin negotfiated contractuafl exchanges wfith, one another;they do so wfithfin flarge and compflex economfic and governmentafl systems, whfich generaflfly have far morefinfluence onthefir opportunfitfies and chancesfinflfifethanthe personafl decfisfionsthey make. The capacfitytoformuflate desfires and aspfiratfions, andthe capabfiflfitfiesto advancethem, are substantfiaflfly shaped byfindfivfiduafls’ condfitfions of bfirth andfamfifly orfigfin, evenfinthose socfietfies whfich are most opentofindfivfiduafls’ own strfivfings. Lfiveflfihoods (the essentfiafl means offlfife, andthe groundsfor befing abfleto make chofices and pursue goafls) are usuaflfly made avafiflabfleto, or wfithhefld from, peopfle, by decfisfionstaken wfithfin organfisatfions of many kfinds, suchthatthe findfivfiduaflfreedoms whfichthe domfinant order procflafims asfits first prfincfipfle arefin fact mfightfifly constrafined byforces over whfich nofindfivfiduafl has controfl - aflthough of course some have more powerthan others.
For human befings are essentfiaflfly socfiafl befings - andfindfivfiduaflfreedom and chofice, wherethey emerge and exfist, arethe outcome of deflficate and precarfious socfiafl arrangements, not prfimordfiaflfacts of nature.1 And a besettfingfauflt -findeed
pathoflogy - of contemporary capfitaflfist socfietfiesfisthatfinthefir reflentfless advocacy of findfivfiduaflfreedom, gratfificatfion and possessfiveness,they undermfinethe very socfiafl condfitfions whfich makefits exercfise,for most peopfle, possfibfle.2
Thfis essayfis prfimarfifly concerned wfiththe kfinds of reflatfionshfip wfith others on whfichfindfivfiduafls dependforthefir weflfl-befing,throughthe varfious phases ofthefir flfives.Itfocuses partficuflarfly onthe quaflfity of our socfiaflfinstfitutfions -finthe spheres, for exampfle, of heaflth, educatfion, work, crfimfinafljustfice or cfitfizenshfip - and argues thatthefir quaflfity depends substantfiaflfly on what quaflfitfies of human reflatfionshfipthey facfiflfitate. A finafl sectfion consfidersthe effects of a narrowflyfinstrumentafl worfld vfiew on reflatfionshfips between humankfind andthe materfiafl worfld.
Human
needs
and
the
weflfare
state
Intheflong arguments about whatfin one dfiscoursefis caflfledthe weflfare state,fin another socfiafl protectfion, andfin another socfiafl rfights and entfitflements, a crucfiafl demand has beenfor recognfitfion ofthe reaflfitfies of unavofidabfle and unfiversafl human dependency.
Human befings comefintothe worfld entfirefly heflpfless, and are dependent,for many years, onthe care of others.Indeed,they are even dependent onthefirflovfing care, sfincethe capacfity of personsto deveflop mfinds and emotfionafl resources depends onthe quaflfity of attentfion gfiventothemthroughthefirfinfancy and chfifldhood. Throughoutthefirflfives, butfin partficuflarfinthefirflater years, peopfle are vuflnerabfletofiflflness, and nearfly aflfl wfiflfl experfience a perfiod oftfime whenthey are asfintensefly vuflnerabfle and dependent uponthe mfinfistratfions of others asthey were whenthey were first born.
thefir earflfiest days offlfife, and wherethey are not, or cannot, be met, a repertofire of remedfies and sanctfions arefinvarfiabfly mobfiflfisedto brfing about some acceptabfleflevefl of compflfiance wfith socfiafl norms. (Dfifferent socfietfies empfloy dfifferent regfimes of compflfianceforthefir devfiants, andthese change wfiththetfimes, as Mfichefl Foucauflt among others has shown.)
When chfifldren first enterthe worfld,they aflready brfing wfiththem compflex materfiafl and reflatfionafl needs, whose satfisfactfion or otherwfise bythefir prfimary carers wfiflfl aflways haveflastfing consequencesforthefirflater deveflopment and weflfl-befing. A chfifld’s entryfintothe worfld beyond hfis or herfamfifly, andfintothe dfifferent stages of educatfion andthe chaflflenges whfichthfis brfings, carrfies wfithfit another cfluster of needs,forthe provfisfion of whfich chfifldren andthefirfamfiflfies depend on others, fin schoofls and other supportfive socfiafl agencfies. Later stfiflfl, comesthetransfitfionfor young peopflefrom befing recefivers of and partficfipantsfin educatfion,tothe worfld of work, whenfindfivfiduafls are expectedto becomethe makers of goods andthe producers of vafluefinthefir own rfight. Thfistransfitfionfinvoflvesfits own vuflnerabfiflfitfies, whfichfin present economfic cfircumstances have become partficuflarfly acute, sfince for many young peopfle work of any kfind, and especfiaflfly work whfich offersthe prospects of personafl satfisfactfion and deveflopment, are absent. Today, eventhe transfitfionfrom unfiversfityto empfloyment,forthe reflatfivefly prfivfifleged young peopfle who have beento unfiversfity,fis often hazardous andfuflfl of anxfiety, so defectfive has socfiety becomefinfits support of such crucfiafl stagesfintheflfife-course.
Norfisthe experfience of becomfing a parentto be understood as a merefly‘naturafl’ functfion, capabfle of befing undertaken outsfide of a supportfive network of socfiafl reflatfions,fincfludfingfamfiflfies,frfiendshfips andformaflfinstfitutfions. Thesefincflude the medficafl servfices necessaryto supportthe bfirth of a chfifld, andthe materfiafl arrangements whfich are necessaryfif afamfiflyfisto have somewheretoflfive, and resources on whfichtoflfive - whfich can noflongerto betakenfor granted gfiventhe deficfiencfies of contemporary housfing and empfloyment opportunfitfies.
Andflater stfiflfl,therefis anfinevfitabfletransfitfionfromthe worfld of workfinto retfirement, andthe experfiencesthfis can brfing, whfich may rangefromthefimposfitfion of an abruptfloss offidentfity (whfich may amountto a kfind of socfiafl death)to entry finto a phase of post-retfirementflfife whfich can havethe potentfiafl bothfor new kfinds offreedom and satfisfactfion, andfor experfiences offloneflfiness and emptfiness.
the earflfier epoch of capfitaflfismthat we have caflfledthe socfiafl democratfic settflement, as a set of responsestothese varfious phases of dependency. Thfis settflement recognfised - andfindeedfinsfisted -thatthe‘flaw ofthe market’ coufld not,forthe majorfity of peopfle, provfide sufficfientflyfor such needs.
One means of pubflficfinterventfionthen chosen was materfiafl support, provfidfing forthe redfistrfibutfion of money and resourcestofindfivfiduafls andfamfiflfies at dependent phases ofthefirflfife-cycfle whenthese coufld not be adequatefly provfided byfindfivfiduafl seflf-provfisfion (and of coursethfis stfiflfl,fin somewhat attenuated form, contfinuestofunctfion). And aflthoughthere was usuaflfly some eflement of redfistrfibutfion between rficher and poorerfinvoflvedfinthesetransactfions, a much morefimportantflogfic was redfistrfibutfion between peopfle at dfifferent phases ofthefir flfife-cycfle. Thatfis,fromthose at a phase offlfife whentheywere abfleto supportthefir famfiflfiesfromthefir earnfingsfintheflabour market,tothose who at another phase of flfife became excfludedfromfit,for reasons of age, sfickness, economfic cfircumstances (flocafl or more pervasfive unempfloyment) or mfisfortune. One ofthe achfievements of Peter Townsend’s research on poverty was hfis demonstratfionthat poverty was a condfitfion whfich was andfis suffered byflarge numbers of unexceptfionaflfindfivfiduafls, at partficuflar phases ofthefirflfife-cycfle, and was not mereflythe experfience of a partficuflar socfiafl cflass ofthe dfisadvantaged andthe poor.3
Manyforms offinterventfionfin responseto human needs are not, however, prfimarfifly materfiafl or financfiaflfin nature, butfinvoflve actfivfitfies of nurturfing, carfing, educatfing, advfisfing, nursfing, rescufing and protectfing.Inthe myrfiad of occupatfions devotedtothese servfices(chfifld care, medficfine,teachfing, nursfing, socfiafl care, even poflficfing)the prfimary work consfists of respondfingfin quaflfitatfivefly specfific waystothe needs of peopfle, wfiththe attentfion, commfitments and skfiflfls whfich are approprfiateto each partficuflar sfituatfion. A dfiversfity of capabfiflfitfies and sensfitfivfitfies arefinvoflvedfin aflfl ofthese actfivfitfies, each supported at best by dfistfinct occupatfionafl cufltures.
and meanfing of whatthey do goes unrecognfised, dfisparaged and even abused by poflficy-makers andthe managementsthat are madeto serve asthefirfinstruments.
How
neoflfiberaflfism
undermfines
socfiafl
provfisfion
Itfis of coursefinevfitabflethatfin modern socfietfiesthe servfices whfich provfide for human vuflnerabfiflfitfies are organfised wfithfinformaflfinstfitutfions. These are often hfighfly compflex organfisatfions, sometfimesfinvoflvfing sophfistficatedtechnficafl resources, asfin medficafl care. For reasons of scaflethese are necessarfifly‘fimpersonafl’ fin some ofthefir operatfions. Resources are aflways necessarfiflyflfimfited, andfimpersonafl procedures -for exampflethe use of web-based systemsto conveyfinformatfion or make appofintments - may betfime- and cost-savfingto good effect. Good quaflfity human servfices, evenfifthey depend prfimarfifly onface-to-facefinteractfions (such as betweenteacher and pupfifl ortherapfist and cflfient) can nefither be created nor mafintafined wfithout educatfion,trafinfing, pflannfing and organfisatfion. Dfifficuflt chofices haveto be madefin decfidfing howto provfide compflex human servfices,fin regardto whfich kfind offinstfitutfions work bestfin whfich cfircumstances. Therefis no unfiversafl soflutfionto befoundtothe questfion of what organfisatfionaflforms can provfidethe optfimafl contafinersfor each kfind of servfice. Whatfis, however, certafinfisthat many dfifferent‘vofices’ andfinterests needto befinvoflvedfin decfidfing democratficaflfly, and through pubflfic dfiscussfion, whfichfinstfitutfionaflforms are bestfin what condfitfions. Underthe regfime of neoflfiberaflfism, however, a sfingflefimposed‘unfiversafl modefl’ forthe provfisfion of servficesfis befing propagated and enforced. Thfisfis based on the doctrfinethat servfices wfiflfl be provfided effectfivefly and efficfientfly onfly where provfiders are motfivated prfimarfifly by financfiaflfincentfives, andthe beflfiefthatthe transfer of a hfitherto pubflfic servficeto a prfivate provfiderfisfipsofactoflfikeflytofleadto fitsfimprovement andto greater efficfiency. Thfis assumptfionfis of course afaflse one, and onethat oftenfleadsto a dfispflacement of attentfionfromthe provfisfion ofthe servfice, andthe compflex systems and cufltures requfiredto achfievethfis,tothe shor t-term afims of financfiafl return. The gross scandafls of A4E,the firmto whomtheflfion’s share ofthe Preparatfionfor Work programme was handed over, and of G4S,the company entrusted wfith provfidfing securfityforthe London Oflympfics, are exampfles ofthe rfisksfinvoflvedfinthfis approach.
operate as busfinesses or quasfi-busfinesses, wfiththe state ofthefir baflance-sheets gfiven prfiorfity over aflfl otherfindficators ofthefir performance and vaflue. Such‘market dfiscfipflfines’ have been wfideflyfimposed onfinstfitutfions whfich are stfiflflformaflfly‘pubflfic’ finthefir ownershfip, ostensfibfly as meanstofimprovethefir efficfiency. Butfitfis cflearthat the‘pubflfic’ character ofthesefinstfitutfions can be madefinto a mere externafl sheflfl, whfich aflflowsthefirfinternafl remodeflflfingfinto structures and cufltures very cfloseto those of corporate busfinesses.
Oncethfis remodeflflfing hastaken pflace,fit becomes onfly afurther stepto aflflow ‘fuflfly prfivate’ provfiders entryfinto what have been redefined as‘markets’, andfor the whoflesafle prfivatfisatfion of pubflfic servficestotake pflace. Thfisfis a programme of prfivatfisatfion by steaflth and mfisrepresentatfion, sfince even asthese organfisatfionafl changes are enforced, pubflfic denfiafls contfinuethatthey have anythfingto do wfith prfivatfisatfion. Andthfistheflogfic has aflsoflegfitfimatedfincreasfingfinequaflfitfies of rewardstofindfivfiduafls wfithfinthe pubflfic sector, wfith dfifferentfiafls betweenthosefin more andfless senfior posfitfionsfincreasfing by mufltfipfles over recent years. One hardfly hasto be cynficaflto recognfisethatthetacfit purpose of creatfing a stratum of super -managers (e.g. unfiversfity vfice-chanceflflors, NHS andflocafl authorfity executfives, and thefir phaflanxes offlfieutenants) pafid at somethfing approachfingtheflevefl of prfivate sector managersfisto weakenthefirfidentfificatfions wfith pubflfic cufltures and vaflues, andto recrufitthem as accompflficestothe new order ofthe rfich.
The probflemfisthatfif organfisatfions,thefir managers andthefir empfloyees are fincentfivfised chfieflyto do whatfisfinthefir own economficfinterests,the consequence fisflfiabfleto bethefinvasfion and corruptfion ofthefir prfimarytasks and commfitments. The‘economfic’flogfic of maxfimfisfing financfiafl (or reputatfionafl) returnsfor an
finstfitutfion often runs countertothe‘needs-based’flogfic offuflfiflflfingthefir professfionafl and human goafls. And what may weflfl begfin,for a senfior pubflfic manager, as an externafl pressure on hfim or herto meet demandsto achfieve greater efficfiency or soflvency, overtfime may become anfinternaflfised commfitmentto financfiafl goafls. These now cometo be percefived asthe onfly reaflfitythat matters,fin contradfistfinctfion to whatthey may now see as a merefly sentfimentafl or reactfionaryfloyafltyto
amongthe eflfites ofthe prfivate sector.
How do practfitfionersfin such anfinstfitutfion decfide betweenthe prfiorfitythey gfive tothe percefived needs offits cflfients, andfits own financfiafl or reputatfionaflfinterest? Marketfised systems provfide strongfincentfivesto cherry-pfick andto cheat,to find ways of maxfimfisfing economfic returns whfifle mfinfimfisfingthe commfitment of resourcesto the most needy. How much easfierfitfisto demonstrate strong educatfionafl performance fif one excfludes weak pupfifls; orto achfieve hfigh returnsfin heaflth carefif one avofids takfing onthe most chronficaflfly vuflnerabfle patfients. Orto be a‘worfld cflass unfiversfity’ fif onflythe mosttaflented and prfivfifleged students are enroflfled. Thfisfis notto mentfion the grosserforms of cheatfing whfich are sometfimes reveafled, as when paymentfis cflafimedfor servfices whfich are not even deflfivered(asfinthe findfing ofjobsfor young peopflefin a recent case). The prfincfipfles of responsfivenesstothe needs of others, and of pursufit offindfivfiduafl andfinstfitutfionafl seflf-finterest, arefrequentflyfin conflfict wfith one another. A dfifferent set of assumptfions and vafluesfis neededfifthfis contradfictfionfisto be resoflved, and a proper prfiorfity accordedto human weflfl-befing.
Reguflatory systems - whfich have become anfincreasfingfly pervasfive aspect of modernforms of governance - often mereflyfincentfivfise seflf-finterested behavfiour by finstfitutfions orthefir workers, even whenthefir ostensfibfle objectfisto ensurethatthey respond approprfiateflyto peopfle’s needs. Thfisfis because compflfiance can become an overrfidfing preoccupatfion wfithfin organfisatfions, dfistractfing practfitfionersfrom responsfivenesstothefir prfimarytask, ratherthan assfistfingthemfinfit.
In aflflthese ways, a neoflfiberaflfimposfitfion of market reflatfions undermfines
finstfitutfions orfigfinaflfly set upfin recognfitfion of human need and socfiaflfinterdependence.
Reflatfionshfips
and
weflfl
-befing
schooflfifthey have more attentfionfromteachers. Thfisfis why one ofthe benefits soughtfinthe purchase of prfivate educatfionfis smaflfler cflasses and morefavourabfle pupfifl-teacher ratfios. The unfiversfitfies of hfighest standfing have more resourcesto spend, per student,thanflower-ranked unfiversfitfies.
In enterfing pafid workforthe firsttfime (or perhaps at anytfime)the finest gfift any new entrant can recefivefis a supervfisor, manager or mentor who has anfinterest fin and a commfitmentto hfis or her weflfl-befing and deveflopment.Itfis a goodfortune when someone’s earfly occupatfionafl experfiencefis ofthfis kfind, andfit often makes aflastfing dfifferencetoflater career deveflopment andfuflfiflment. Furthermore, such quaflfitfies of concern, once experfienced, are oftenfinternaflfised, and become part of a ‘habfitus’ whfichfisflfived outfinflater practfice,tothe good offlater entrantsfinto a fiefld orfinstfitutfion who benefitfrom a‘passfing on’ ofthe attentfion earflfier gfiven. Such good occupatfionafl practfices, based on recognfitfion ofthefimportance of reflatfionshfips for personafl deveflopment, are not mereflythe attrfibutes offindfivfiduafls. They can be embodfiedfinfinstfitutfions and occupatfionafl cufltures, overflong perfiods, and may contrfibute a great deafltothe reputatfion and success of a partficuflar organfisatfion or enterprfise. Someone oncetofld me, apropros of a partficuflar young person enterfing her first permanentjob,‘Shefisfortunate -that organfisatfion (whfich myfinformant knew weflfl) has a reputatfionfor nurturfingthose whojofinfit.’ And sofit proved.
We know,further,thatthe quaflfity of attentfion whfich doctors or nurses gfiveto thefir patfients makes a great deafl of dfifferenceto anfindfivfiduafl’s experfience offiflflness, andthe anxfiety and emotfionafl (findeed physficafl) pafinto whfichthfis gfives rfise. There fis a substantfiafl scfientfificflfiterature onthe emotfionafl dfimensfions of heaflth care, fromthe dfifferent research perspectfives offinformatfion-sharfing, emotfionaflflabour, and unconscfious defences agafinst anxfiety. Buttherefis no roomfor doubt about the centrafl reflatfionaflfissue. Furthermore, aflthoughthe deveflopments whfich have taken pflacefin regardto care ofthe dyfing,throughthe hospfice movement andfits broader extensfions, owe a great deafltothe pharmaceutficafl management of pafin, fits achfievements are aflso duetothe recognfitfion ofthe emotfionafl and reflatfionafl ambfience surroundfing patfients.Indeed onefisfinseparabflyflfinkedtothe other, sfinceflack of attentfionto physficafl pafinfis sometfimes an effect of an envfironmentfin whfichthe patfient cannot be seen as a whofle person. Suchfinattentfionfis often a sefl f-dfistancfing defence agafinstthe recognfitfion of pafin and sufferfing.
promfinentfindfivfiduafls,for exampfle wrfiters and artfists, sometfimesfrom obscure and dfifficuflt backgrounds, who have attrfibutedthe begfinnfing ofthefir creatfiveflfife andfits opportunfitfiesto a partficuflarfrfiend orteacher, whosefinterestfinthem wasthe keyto thefir dfiscoverfing or recognfisfingthefir potentfiafl. Or one coufld pofinttothe common experfience of young peopfleflearnfingto do musfic, orto act, orto swfim, and how much dfifferencethe quaflfity of attentfionfrom ateacher can make.
Thfis perspectfive suggeststhat a sfignfificant measure of vaflue, andfindeed ofthe weflfl-befing of a socfiety, shoufldflfiefinthe quaflfitfies of reflatfionshfip whfich are avafiflabfle tofindfivfiduafls at each stage ofthefirflfife-course.Itfis not economfic growth asfitfis countedfin moneyterms by whfich we shoufld measurethe progress orfimprovement fin our socfiety, but bythe attentfion gfivento peopfle andthefir deveflopment.It fis surefly obvfious,furthermore,that asthefinvestmentfin humanflabourthatfis requfiredto produce materfiafl goods dfimfinfishes,thanksto moderntechnoflogfies, sothe potentfiafl avafiflabfiflfity of human resourcesforthe deveflopment and care of persons shoufldfincrease. Therefis no concefivabfle materfiafl ortechnoflogficafl excusefor unempfloyment, whentherefis abundant work whfich coufld and shoufld be done,fin nurturfing, deveflopfing and expressfing human capabfiflfitfies.
Nor shoufldthfis bethought of sfimpfly asthe substfitutfion of one kfind of ‘consumptfion’for another, or a changefinthe baflance betweenthem. Labour finvestedfin human reflatfionshfipsfis aform of productfion - as much asflabourfinvested finthe manufacture of commodfitfies. Sfincefit shapesfuture capacfitfies,fitfis even more anfinvestmentfinthefuture. Thfisfisthe caseforthe‘human work’ whfichtakes pflace fin schoofls or day-nurserfies, orfintrafinfing and deveflopfing empfloyees, orfinflookfing afterthefiflfl, orfindeedfinthe approprfiate punfishment and care of offenders.
Reflatfions
wfith
the
materfiafl
worfld
atfleast asfar as Genesfis,the cumuflatfive effects ofthefindustrfiafl revoflutfion and now neoflfiberafl gflobaflfisatfion meanthatthfis posfitfionfis noflongertenabfle-fiffit ever was.
The growth of human scfientfific,technoflogficafl and productfive power has generaflfly beentofld as a story oftrfiumph - andfindeedthfisfis aflso howfit appearsfin The Communfist Manfifesto of Marx and Engefls.
The bourgeofisfie, durfingfits rufle of scarce one hundred years, has created more massfive and more coflossafl productfiveforcesthan have aflfl precedfing generatfionstogether. Subjectfion of nature’sforcesto man, machfinery, appflficatfion of chemfistrytofindustry and agrficuflture, steam navfigatfion, rafiflways, eflectrficteflegraphs, cflearfing of whofle contfinents for cufltfivatfion, canaflfisatfion of rfivers, whofle popuflatfions conjured out ofthe ground- what earflfier century had even a presentfimentthat such productfiveforces sflumberedfintheflap of socfiaflflabour?
We are now begfinnfingto seethfings dfifferentfly. Naturefis not anfinexhaustfibfle resource, putthere by dfivfine provfidence, mereflyto serve human purposes. Furthermore,the entfire conceptuafl scheme by whfich humankfind and nature are defined as separate entfitfies can now be seento be a mfisfleadfing one.4
Wetendto understand‘nature’ as an entfityfindependent of our conscfiousness, reveafledto usfinfitstrue characterthroughthe dfiscoverfies of scfience. Thus we fimagfinethat weflookthroughteflescopes atthe unfiverse ratherfinthe waythat weflook out of a wfindow at whatflfies outsfidefit. Butfin reaflfity our knowfledge and understandfing of naturefisfless strafightforwardthanthfis. What we see, and know,fis shaped by what we‘see wfith’, and bythe meansthrough whfich wefinvestfigatefit.
Bruno Latour has demonstratedthat most of what we beflfieve we know about naturefisthe outcome of hfighfly seflectfivefinterventfionsthrough whfich aspects of nature have been seflected,fisoflated and practfised upon.5Thesefinvestfigatfionsflead
controfl of dfiseases; of eflectrficfitythe powerfing of machfines andtheflfightfing and heatfing of dweflflfings; of gravfitythe desfign of brfidges, machfines and guns; of DNA, sooner orflater,the desfignfing of crops andthe controfl of some dfiseases.
In other words, wefinhabfit a nature knownto usthrough our deflfiberate and controflfledfinteractfions wfithfit, undertakenfromthe perspectfive of our ownfinterests and purposes. A predomfinantfly capfitaflfist socfiety, over severafl centurfies, has gfiven rfise to a certafinform of knowfledge of nature, one of astoundfing power. Andthfisform of understandfing has hfistorficaflfly ecflfipsed others. But,fits perspficacfity and power notwfithstandfing,fit remafins oneform of knowfledge, one among other possfibfleforms. For exampfle aborfigfinafl peopfles see and know a dfifferent worfld, andfimpute dfifferent propertfiestofit. Soforthat matter dfidthe prescfientfific cfivfiflfisatfions whfich ordered thefir worfldthrough a reflfigfious cosmoflogy.In sofar as each ofthese‘ways of knowfing’ supports a partficuflar kfind of human socfiety, and seemsto have been constructedfin reflatfiontofits partficuflar needs and desfires, we may supposethatfin some sense each of them was servficeabfle, or worked,to a certafin degree andfor certafin purposes. Latour has recentfly madethfis casefin reflatfionto reflfigfious practfices, argufingthat eventhough they makeflfittfle sensefin reflatfionto a scfientfific worfld-vfiew,they may neverthefless be practficesthat generate meanfingsthat sustafin aform of weflfl-befing.6
The domfinantframfing of reflatfions between humankfind and nature wfithfin capfitaflfism definesthe naturaflfin a mereflyfinstrumentafl way, supportfingthe categorfisatfion of‘naturafl resources’ as merefinputsfinto productfive processes - as ‘factors of productfion’ - whose vafluefis measuredfinterms ofthefir contrfibutfion to market vaflue (‘exchange vaflue’,fin Marx’sterms). Humanflabour andfland are definedfin cflassficafl economfictheoryfinthe same way,thefir vaflue befing reducfibfleto the contrfibutfionthey maketothe productfion of safleabfle products.
Non
-market
vaflues
Some nfineteenth-century crfitfics offindustrfiaflfism and capfitaflfism (fincfludfing John Ruskfin and Wfiflflfiam Morrfis) arguedthatthe reflatfions between humankfind and materfiaflthfings embodfiedfinflabour had vaflue and sfignfificance beyondthefir profitabfiflfity. The vaflue of whatfis producedthrough craftsmanshfip -fin regardto the object made,fits maker andfits user - was a specfiafl one. They contrastedthe expressfiveness and beauty of what was madefinthe pre-findustrfiafl era of artfisanafl productfion wfith what came about durfingthe era offindustrfiafl manufacture. They hefldthatthe socfiafl reflatfions of artfisan productfion,throughthe assocfiatfions of gufiflds andtheflfike, were of a moraflfly superfior kfindthanthose offactory productfion, and fits products often more beautfifufl.
The contfinufing vaflue accordedtothe productfion of works of art, andthe wfidespreadflevefls of aspfiratfionto engagefinthfis and otherforms of creatfive actfivfity, represent an evafluatfion ofthe same kfind,fin whfich a specfific actfivfityfis accorded fintrfinsfic vaflue beyond what marketsfinthemseflves mfight accordtofit.
Such partficuflarfistfic,fintrfinsfic, vafluatfions arefimportantfinfindfivfiduafls’flfives, and perhaps have become more so as materfiafl prosperfity has become greater. One can thfink ofthe cufltfivatfion of such actfivfitfies as cookfing, gardenfing, house-renovatfion, dancfing and musfic-makfing as anfindficatfion ofthe hfigh vaflue accordedto human reflatfions wfiththfings(or symboflfic practfices)fin contemporary socfiety. These actfivfitfies are aflso necessarfifly socfiaflfinthefir nature, reflectfing or brfingfingfinto exfistence ‘communfitfies of practfice’ and enjoyment,through whfichfindfivfiduafls’ actfivfitfies and commfitments are supported. But when such actfivfitfies are ceflebratedfin prfint, orfin programmes onteflevfisfion,fitfis often uncflear whether we are befingfinvfitedto vaflue an fintrfinsfic commfitment, orthe materfiafl reward whfich pursufit ofthfis can brfing. Doesthe charfisma derfivefrom afleadfingfootbaflfler’staflent, orfrom hfis unfimagfinabfle weaflth?
workthatthey mfight wfishto do.
These aflternatfive morafl systemsfloop around andfintersect wfith each other. The London art market becomes a major earner offorefign exchangeforthe UK, and Damfien Hfirst unashamedfly ceflebrates moneyfin hfis own art work. Whofisthe wfinner finthesetransactfions,the vaflue of art orthe vaflue of money?Are professfionafl sports, orthe Oflympfic Games, demeanedfinthefir essence bythefirfinvasfion by commercfiafl sponsors, or doesthfis merefly enhancethefir attractfionfor performers and audfiences? Many successfufl companfiesfincorporatefintothefir productfion systems hfigh quaflfity desfign or research, or an attentfionto human reflatfionshfips,fin orderto sfignfify an attentfionto vaflues beyond market exchange- even asthese are depfloyedfinfits servfice.
The worfld offindfivfiduaflfist, acqufisfitfive capfitaflfism has become unsustafinabfle, for many reasons.Itsfideoflogy offindfivfiduafl seflf-finterest vfioflates human needsfor connectedness and mutuafl care.Its unseefing and rapacfious attfitudetothe materfiafl envfironmentfisthreatenfingto destroythe condfitfions offlfife onthe pflanet.Its conceptfion of profit-seekfing asthe end offlfife, ratherthan, asfit shoufld be, merefly a specfific economfic devficefor brfingfing about economficfinfitfiatfive and efficfiency, substfitutes meansfor endsfinthe organfisatfion of socfiety. Some reconsfideratfion of these mfistaken vaflues, andthe emergence of countercurrentstothem, can aflready been seento betakfing pflace. Butthese arguments needto betaken muchfurther: a substantfiafl rebaflancfing of socfiafl vaflues awayfrom profit-seekfing and market fimperatfivesfis urgentfly needed.
Thfisfis a sflfightfly dfifferent versfion of Mfichaefl Rustfin’s contrfibutfionto After neoflfiberaflfism: the Kfiflburn Manfifesto, avafiflabfle at www.soundfings.org.uk.
Mfichaefl Rustfin fis afoundfing edfitor ofSoundfings andfis co-edfitor of After neoflfiberaflfism:the Kfiflburn Manfifesto.
Notes
groundsfor socfioflogy’s crfitfique ofthe‘findfivfiduaflfist’ dfiscfipflfines of economfics and psychoflogy as descrfiptfions ofthe ontoflogficaflfoundatfions of human exfistence.
2. In IPPR’s recent short book The Reflatfionafl State (G. Cooke and R. Mufir (eds), IPPR 2012),fits prfincfipafl author Geoff Muflgan arguesthatjust asthe state prevfiousfly changedfrom befing a coercfiveto a deflfivery state, nowfisthetfime to movetowardsthe reflatfionafl state. Thfis argument seemsto be a seflf-crfitfique of New Labour’s approachto government, and as suchfis weflcome. Butthe bookfocusesfits crfitficfism on atop-down, centraflfisfing and bureaucratfic state (certafinfly one enemy of a reflatfionafl socfiety), whereas I woufld arguethatfin our tfimefits greater enemyfisthe ethos of an unfettered corporate capfitaflfism. On thfis crucfiafl subjectThe Reflatfionafl State fis sfiflent.
3. P. Townsend, Povertyfinthe Unfited Kfingdom, Pengufin 1979.
4. M.J. Rustfin,‘Howfis cflfimate change anfissuefor psychoanaflysfis,’fin S. Wefintrobe (ed) Engagfing wfith Cflfimate Change, Routfledge 2013.
5. B. Latour, Scfiencefin Actfion, Harvard Unfiversfity Press 1987; andPoflfitfics of Nature, Harvard Unfiversfity Press 2004.