Author:

The UK papers and the rightysphere are all talking about David Cameron’s big speech in which he says we need to stop making excuses for fat people and poor people and criminals and recognise that they have made choices to be the way they are.

“We as a society have been far too sensitive. In order to avoid injury to people’s feelings, in order to avoid appearing judgemental, we have failed to say what needs to be said. We have seen a decades-long erosion of responsibility, of social virtue, of self-discipline, respect for others, deferring gratification instead of instant gratification.
“Instead we prefer moral neutrality, a refusal to make judgments about what is good and bad behaviour, right and wrong behaviour. Bad. Good. Right. Wrong. These are words that our political system and our public sector scarcely dare use any more.”

There’s so much packed into these short paragraphs that its quite impressive. Its a very well-crafted speech that repackages all the talkback shibboleths as if they were something statesmanlike. I could write for ages about the way these ideas are packaged so shrewdly – note the sleight of hand in this next excerpt that equates “risk of obesity” to “risk of poverty” as if these were equivalent.

Refusing to use these words – right and wrong – means a denial of personal responsibility and the concept of a moral choice.
We talk about people being ‘at risk of obesity’ instead of talking about people who eat too much and take too little exercise. We talk about people being at risk of poverty, or social exclusion: it’s as if these things – obesity, alcohol abuse, drug addiction – are purely external events like a plague or bad weather.
Of course, circumstances – where you are born, your neighbourhood, your school, and the choices your parents make – have a huge impact. But social problems are often the consequence of the choices that people make.

The biggest problem with this emphasis on individual choice and individual responsibility is simply this – it doesn’t get you anywhere. If we conceive of social problems through a lens of personal choice, then right out of the gate we’re drastically limiting our ability as a society to respond to them. Instead of interrogating circumstances and environment and contributing factors, we focus on choice, and the incentives and disincentives that act on it.
And this even though we know full well that choices are made in ways far from the rational. To pretend otherwise is to deny what it is to be human. If we focus on social change in terms of choice we are doubly hampered, firstly because we are limiting our range of responses to “provide incentives” and “provide disincentives”; and secondly because the incentives and disincentives we can provide are profoundly weak. Our choices, when they are the product of reflection and weighing up of incentives and disincentives, will pay little attention to external impositions by the state. Far more important are influences from friends, neighbours, parents – the people you live among whose opinions will affect you each and every day. To believe that ASBOs have had any impact on the behaviour of your typical disaffected yoof goes so far beyond wishful thinking it lands in the realm of ritualised sympathetic magic. (Failed magic, I might add.)
Cameron likely made this speech to put his “hug a hoodie” comments behind him and to make a pass at populist intolerance while Labour support has collapsed too much to benefit. It will certainly give him a big bump in his popularity, and it is entirely in step with the overall project of the right. And it’s a shame. This is basically a retreat from the complexity of the real world into a deeply naive social science. These unhelpful ideas are already virulent enough without being dignified with this kind of high-profile promotion.
(I feel I should note, in case of misunderstanding – yes, personal choice plays a role in behaviour, and yes, incentives and disincentives can affect personal behaviour. My point is, that is an incredibly narrow understanding of the complexities of why a person, or a society, behave the way they do.)