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.)
There’s that Thatcher quote: “There is no such thing as society, only individual men and women and their families.”
According to a speech I heard at the Edin Uni graduations this year that quote actually comes from a speech to the Church of Scotland General Assembly on the Mound. Allegedly the Moderator cleared his throat and commented quietly: “Here, we believe that society is all there is.”
I know I need to make a more eloquent comment (or preferably none at all) so please excuse my tired and sleepy brain but …
David Cameron is a twat.
All he has done is a bit of nifty word play without actually looking at the issues. But you’ve already said that anyway so I’ll stick to my shorter statement.
There’s an odd contradiction, or maybe I just don’t understand correctly.
The biggest problem with this emphasis on individual choice and individual responsibility is simply this – it doesn’t get you anywhere.
So… this implies to me that individuals are essentially powerless within the wider society? Tossed like flotsam in the storm of life?
But then you say:
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.
Which implies the opposite to me. That society is powerless to impose structure upon the individual life. This shifts responsibility back onto the individual for their own choices…
What am I missing? It seems to me that the wider world in which we live has an non-negligible impact upon our lives. But that also, whatever the rules of the state (or the implicit rules of society), people do make individual choices for good and/or evil.
alasdair: What you’re missing is the context you lifted those two sentences out of. 2/10 for English Comprehension, please read the entire textbook before resitting the exam.
Mash: There’s a contradiction in here, but it isn’t mine. reading over your comment I see the first statement you quote wasn’t sufficiently clear, because I think your (entirely correct) reading of it isn’t the (also entirely correct) reading I was intending.
Cameron’s adopting a model that says the proper way for public policy to address human behaviour is by looking at personal choice and individual responsibility. What he doesn’t mention is that the state is rubbish at influencing personal choice. So he’s choosing a tactic that is doomed to fail, and excluding all other possible means of intervention in human behaviour (e.g. the surrounding circumstances). Focusing on personal choice doesn’t get you anywhere because it doesn’t provide you (as a society) with any new tools to change anything – it is completely empty. Worse than that, it takes away tools that have been shown to work.
I don’t know how well I’m expressing this, because I’m tired and it’s time to go home. I agree entirely with your final statement, for what that’s worth. We can argue the toss about how much weight we put on personal choice – the evidence I’ve seen is that “personal choice” has a pretty minimal role in determining behaviour, and that’s assuming you can even nail down exactly what personal choice *is* and when it happens.
Joey: 😛
“the evidence I’ve seen is that “personal choice” has a pretty minimal role in determining behaviour, and that’s assuming you can even nail down exactly what personal choice *is* and when it happens.”
This too seems pretty crazy. You’re saying that when someone does something (anything) you can’t be sure they’ve made a choice. To me, that’s not seeing the trees for the woods. How can you really be saying that it’s impossible to discern when someone is choosing between alternatives? That leads you to some kind of crazy deterministic paradigm where there is no free choice at all. That’s a very radical position, even in the mild form that I believe you intend.
Isn’t it more reasonable to say that the value-weighting of choices is where society has it’s imput, rather than saying the individual has no choice?
But fundamentally, I don’t think you’ve resolved my question about the contradiction; as you admit. :/
I’m not sure that your claim:
“that the state is rubbish at influencing personal choice”
is substantially correct. But the terms of reference we’re working in here are so vague that you might be either of totally correct or absolutely wrong, and I would have no way of testing your statement against any established fact, or indeed, establishing any facts that are relevant! So perhaps I’ll leave it.
But I think the point is valid: that at some level a person is individually responsible for their own actions. To deny that is to abrogate human freedom on every level, and essentially deny the human experience as valid. Strong words? Yes, but not, I think, entirely out of line, or out of context.
“What you’re missing is the context you lifted those two sentences out of. 2/10 for English Comprehension, please read the entire textbook before resitting the exam.”
*shrug* I think I’d prefer it if you explained to me why I was wrong, rather than handed down such edicts and judgements. I quoted selectively and limited my answer lengths to what seemed appropriate for a reasonably light-weight, and I might add, genuine, inquiry into what Morgue meant. If that wasn’t good enough for you… why bother responding at all? And if it did merit a response, why not give it the attention you craved from my original post?
In short: your post here achieves nothing except to irritate me. I’m happy to try and understand what Morgue is trying to get at, and I’d prefer that you actually tried to help this process, than simply be a smart arse.
I’ll have a go at giving my reading of Morgue’s post:
The State can influence a lot of things through policy. They can adress Big Things like reducing widescale poverty through upping the minimum wage, increasing targetted benefits, giving all employers tax incentives to do nice things for employees (like give adequeate sick leave) etc.
They can also target policies on an individual basis – increase personal penalties for wrongdoing through benefit withholding (eg for parents of teens who skip school), tougher prison sentences, harsher labour laws which give employers greater freedom to fire at will etc.
The State can use either type of tool – broad social engineering to change society or individual incentives and disincentives – to achieve a given end.
Morgue is suggesting that the broad tinkering with living conditions and attempts to shift attitudes and values are *more successful* than individual incentives and disincentives, because when an individual makes a choice they aren’t good at looking at the pros and cons.
Better to create a situation where people don’t need to steal than one where some people need to choose between theft and begging, because lots of people will make the less desirable choice regardless of the punishment should they get caught.
“I’ll have a go at giving my reading of Morgue’s post:”
Your take on the situation is plausible; but is it really what Morgue is saying?
Really broadly, Cameron seems to be advocating a focus solely on the individual, i.e. that crimes exist without a social context. Morgue seems to me to be advocating the other radical position, i.e. that individuals are powerless to affect their social context.
Looking at my first post, the distinct conflation which helps ameliorate my confusion is
society == state
Which is not really distinctly true; but I think it is generally true that:
state = f(society) or society = f(state)
That is, there is a distinct and powerful relationship where the state influences society (or the other way around?).
So, if you think of this as:
choice = f(society, personality)
Then Cameron is arguing that the effect of society is negligible, and Morgue is effectively arguing that the effect of an individual’s personality is negligible. Which is fine, so far as it goes;
But Morgue muddied the water by also claiming that the state has no meaningful effect on society. So, essentially arguing that the state is cut out of these equations in any meaningful way. But how can that be true? It seems crazy.
Basically, while I don’t think Cameron’s position is correct, I can’t see why Morgue is so entirely dismissive of it. I can see that the language is a problem, and that Morgue’s bleeding liberal heart is offended by Cameron… but I’m absolutely not clear on why Cameron is 100% wrong.
“Morgue is suggesting that the broad tinkering with living conditions and attempts to shift attitudes and values are *more successful* than individual incentives and disincentives, because when an individual makes a choice they aren’t good at looking at the pros and cons.”
I really wish HTML were available for this. So much clearer.
Anyway…
If you’re right about your interpretation here, we are fully divorcing a person’s choice from their specific circumstances. You’re trying to prevent an individual from committing crimes based on what society as a whole is up to. You’re losing sight of the actual person who is of interest to you.
*shrug* I think I’m out of my real area of expertise here. I really only posted anything because I genuinely can’t understand the contradiction in Morgue’s post.
Go David Cameron! Take it to those fatties and those poor-ies! It’s all their fault!
Sorry, I’m just not really in a head space to make a serious comment.
Mash – reading through your recent comments has, in fact, confused me. (Being all busy at work probably helps – no time for reflection.)
Let me go back to my original post, and your original response on the contradiction you perceived:
I said “The biggest problem with this emphasis on individual choice and individual responsibility is simply this – it doesn’t get you anywhere.”
You replied “So… this implies to me that individuals are essentially powerless within the wider society?”
This isn’t the meaning I intended there. My “it doesn’t get you anywhere” comment was from the point of view of the state. Focusing on individual choice doesn’t help the state resolve any problems, and in fact makes it hard to do so.
It was not intended as meaning “individual people’s choices don’t get those individuals anywhere”, which is I think the meaning you took from it.
Does that clear up the contradiction you saw? (My later comments about the nature of choice etc. etc. are a slightly different fish-kettle.)
Matt – yeah, that’s very close to the reading I intended.
i’m impressed by the shoehorning of poverty, drugs and alcoholism…
I guess Cameron also disregards the increasing body of literature on the role of genetics/epigenetics (= potentially heritablemodifications to chromosomes as a result of environment) in obesity.