philosophy

Degrees as the Political Default

I glimpsed earlier, just on a friend’s facebook thread, that Reform councillors have now launched a campaign to introduce Christian prayer into council meetings. Of course, like any thinking, rational person, I find this utterly abhorrent: not only do I object to the imposition of religion into politics, but it is also a blatant ploy to exclude any non-Christians (and thus people whom they don’t perceive as British) from the political discourse. It is a sickening act of xenophobia and nothing more. Well, if they are going to do that, then we should also have a rule saying that only people with degrees can be elected to councils. That would obviously exclude every one of those barely literate Reform bigots.

Now, I realise how reactionary and draconian that may in itself sound; and also that I’m making quite a broad, unqualified assumption. But there is a reason why higher education and progressive ideals go hand in hand. University not only educates you about your given subject, but also how to actually think and engage with the world. At uni, not only do you come into contact with new ideas, but also vast arrays of new people and new cultures. Such an environment is inherently antithetical to the reactionary, exclusionary politics of Reform. More to the point, I would prefer anyone in the political sphere to have a degree because at least then we would know they have the critical thinking skills to engage with a given issue, rather than clinging dogmatically to any pre-conceived ideas that they might have. 

Thus it seems to me that making having a degree some kind of default standard for being an elected politician would be a prudent way to go, and almost infinitely more sensible than forcing politicians to pray to a god which can not and does not exist. After all, if we expect doctors and teachers to have the level of education which comes with a degree, then surely we should expect the same standard of our politicians.

So Many Words To Justify Greed

It feels like a while since I wrote anything here about mainstream party politics. I don’t think that was really intentional: it’s not that I stopped caring about what was going on in Westminster or was trying to avoid the subject, but rather that other, more interesting things caught my attention. Needless to say, my blood still has the potential to boil with rage whenever I come into contact with the increasingly idiotic, asinine spewings of the political right. Indeed, I hear that Kemi Badenoch has recently published a hundred page thesis in which she attempts to justify what she believes in as a tory. Such dross is always going to get me going and provoke a reaction.

The problem with those on the political right is that they think they are vastly more intelligent than they really are; or rather that their political beliefs have far more intellectual, altruistic grounding than they actually do. At the end of the day, their blindfold, unwavering belief in free market economics boils down to greed and selfishness: everyone should be able to hoard what they earn, and not have to contribute anything to wider society. Who cares if that just perpetuates social inequalities – if some people can’t earn as much as others, that’s simply due to their own laziness. Or rather, that’s what people like Badenoch tell themself in order to justify the privilege they were born into, as well as their distain for seeing a portion of their wages go towards assisting those who weren’t. They are like children who were never taught the necessity of sharing: they should be allowed to keep what they see as theirs, and if anyone else goes without it’s their own fault.

The thing is, I think deep down people like Badenoch realise this: she’s an intelligent woman, and deep down knows that free market economics is just a way to perpetuate longstanding ingrained social inequalities. Left unregulated, those who have remain free to exploit and dominate those who have not; wealth and privilege remains in the hands of the few while everyone else goes without; state structures like education are left deprived while those who can afford it send their kids to the best fee paying schools. Neoliberal economics is simply a way to perpetuate and justify social inequality. The problem is, those who advocate it will never admit this, even to themselves: they like to think they are as altruistic, caring and socially minded as anyone else.

Thus this article by Badenoch is clearly a form of self justification – a way to ground her greed and distain for contributing to society in some kind of intellectual guise, while deep down knowing that such principles are shortsighted and childish. As a black woman in particular, she must realise how socioeconomic privilege remains in the hands of the few if left unregulated, and how those born into wealth just continue to exploit and dominate those who aren’t. Not only is this inherently unjust but a waste of human potential. It is only through working together as a society that we can overcome such stratification. Thus the Tory leader can write as many articles as she likes, she can wrap herself in as many motherly terms as she wants; this doesn’t change the fact that she is the leader of the party of white male privilege whose primary goal is the perpetuation of socioeconomic stratification.

Not All Tiers Are An Evil

While I can’t say I’m absolutely cool with it, I think I need to flag this very interesting little piece by my friend James Cullis up. The notion of social tiers has cropped up in the national discourse, and James argues that adapting to everyones need is an essential result of human diversity, so to a certain extent social stratification is inevitable. As he puts it, “We prioritise, we triage, we judge. Society works because we discriminate — not in the moral sense, but in the literal one: we distinguish between cases.This is why the Novak scandal was so disturbing. It was a grotesque parody of justice, and yes, anyone who manipulates religion to game the system should be condemned. But here is where I part ways with Starmer: tiered policing exists because society itself is tiered. It is not a glitch in the system; it is part of the system.If we truly wanted “one tier,” then let’s be honest about what that would mean. Remove the ramps from buses. Rip out the lifts. Tell disabled people and the elderly to climb the stairs. Abolish sign language. Scrap subtitles. Eliminate every accommodation that acknowledges human difference.”

I think that, on the face of it, this is quite incontestable, and very well put. The thing is problems arise when such ideas are taken too far and this stratification is used to justify inequality and injustice. We are indeed all different, everyone has different needs, and society should accommodate those needs; but that should not be allowed to give rise to some kind of social hierarchy. Accepting that everyone is different should not then be twisted into the idea that some people are inherently worth more than others. If anything, the fact that there is no such thing as a “normal human being” means precisely the opposite: we all have equal potential and equal worth, so society/the environment needs to adapt to help everyone fulfil that potential, whatever their needs may be. Somewhat paradoxically, treating everyone equally does not automatically mean treating everyone the same. If some people are more capable than others, then surely those with more ability should assist those with less, be that help practical, physical, financial or whatever. Diversity should thus not be used to underpin notions around socioeconomic class. That is why, in spite of his otherwise solid argument, I find Cullis’ use of the term tier in the quazi-positive sense he does seems to leaves a slightly nasty taste in my my mouth, as it carries with it overtones of the very social stratification that we need to be breaking free from. Yet Cullis seems to imply that such tiering, in this context, is a good thing.

The notion of tiers can therefore be taken either way: used as the basis for equality and acceptance, or abused to justify discrimination and hierarchies. We are currently watching it being taken both ways. The scandal around Henry Novak is now being hijacked: such stratification is being sold to people in the name of tiers, and used as evidence for the perverse notion of “two tier policing”. The fact that some people’s needs differ from other’s should not be used to argue that some people deserve more than others simply because of who they are, or to stir up animosity between groups of people. That’s what makes what we saw yesterday in parliament so sickening, and this cultural impasse so dangerous.