Friday 28 March 2014

People Like Me

People Like Me: In the English-speaking world the Welfare State was born out of two vast historic events, the Great Depression and World War II. The sense of social solidarity engendered by these all-embracing experiences extended the definition of "community" to include everyone who had lived through them - right up to the British Royal Family.
 
IS IT POSSIBLE to renew our social contract without a sense of community?
 
Heather McGhee, who heads up the Washington Office of the UK-based research and advocacy group, Demos, calls it “the great question of our time”.
 
According to the 33-year-old graduate of Yale and the Berkeley Law School, this is because “if you look at all this hostility and anxiety around public solutions, at its root is the anxiety about who the public is. And I think that’s happened because of the real explosion in diversity.”
 
McGhee is not alone in identifying diversity as one of the most potent solvents of the social contract that underpins our Welfare State. But, as a young African-American, she has a better appreciation than most of how all those “hostilities and anxieties” play out in a non-academic context.
 
Because no matter how earnestly we are encouraged (by people like Ms McGhee) to think otherwise, the ordinary person’s understanding of “community” is generally reducible to just three words: “people like me”.
 
In the English-speaking countries the welfare state was born out of two world-shattering events: Economic Depression and Total War. In both situations it proved virtually impossible for ordinary citizens to remain unaffected by the great happenings in which they found themselves entangled, and these common experiences fostered powerful feelings of social solidarity. Everyone could see they were “all in this together” and relying upon one another to make it through to the “broad sunlit uplands” promised by Winston Churchill in the finest hour of that darkest of years – 1940.
 
So pervasive was the impact of the Great Depression that the experiences of poverty and marginalisation began to lose much of their social stigma. Working-class and middle-class citizens alike were winnowed by the near collapse of the capitalist order, and even those whose material well-being remained unaffected – like the Prince of Wales – could see that “something must be done”.
 
And later, when the bombs were falling, that sense of solidarity only grew stronger. In spite of pleas to remove themselves to safety in Canada, the Royal Family refused to leave the capital. When Buckingham Palace was hit during the Blitz, Queen Elizabeth told the press: “Now, at least, I can look the East End in the eye.”
 
On the battlefields, where men of every rank and station quite literally rubbed shoulders, the essential equality of all human-beings was daily demonstrated. The roughest working-class battler could prove himself a bloody hero and the bloodlines of a thousand years produce nothing more than a craven coward. Nobility came not from class or money but from character. In war, only deeds mattered.
 
This, then, was the historical forge in which the welfare state was fashioned. When people used the word ‘community’; when they thought of people like themselves; the picture included everyone from the King and Queen to the local “night-soil” collector. Everyone who had been through the fire together – and come out the other side.
 
To live for longer than that single generation, however, the social contract that had been fashioned in “blood, toil, tears and sweat” would need to be sent to the forge again. A new generation would need to feel the hammer blows of history.
 
Some did.
 
On union picket-lines. Registering voters in the Deep South. Opposing the obscenity of war. Demanding entry for all those who were not “like me”. Envisioning a more diverse and democratic definition of ‘community’.
 
A More Diverse Definition of Community: America answers Amerika. The Pentagon, 21 October 1967.
 
Too few.
 
The moment the social contract was deemed to include people with darker skins and different gods; the moment people’s taxes were doled out to those whose behaviour flouted the values and conventions of the ‘community’; that was when the solidarities born of depression and war began to fade and wither. The mental picture of who was – and was not – “people like me” narrowed radically. Class and money regained their lost prestige and all the old stigmas attached to poverty and marginalisation returned.
 
A social contract is never for “people like them”.
 
This essay was originally published in The Dominion Post, The Waikato Times, The Taranaki Daily News, The Timaru Herald, The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 28 March 2014.

31 comments:

Guerilla Surgeon said...

God, so many things are not sure where to start. One thing I've all is wanted to know, when the bomb dropped on Buckingham Palace, was the Queen actually there? Or was she in a nice concrete bunker, while my grandparents were in a hole dug in the back garden. You see one thing I've got against the royal family is that while they were possibly in danger, (though not so much early in the war, because the Germans actually tried to bomb military targets) they had no shortage of clothes, or food and were eating grouse or is it grice while my mother was drawing a line at the back of a leg to pretend she had stockings on. At least I suppose some of the odds and sods served in the Navy – where you pretty much have to put yourself in danger if you're on board a ship. My father was in the Royal Navy in World War II, and the chances of him becoming an officer were remote to say the least. And even today in some regiments of the British army, you can't get a commission unless you are at least gentry – for fuck's sake.


"Class and money regained their lost prestige"

You must be kidding right? As if class and money EVER lost prestige, particularly in England where class is still a barrier to advancement. I would say that possibly in the late 50s and early 60s class was to some extent IGNORED. But only to some extent. I don't notice any of the royal family using mockney – the Queen at least still says hice when she really means house :-).
Healthy dose of cynicism needed here I think.

M. Ledgerton said...

Yes, you really must be kidding. The royal family and the one bomb on Buckingham Palace. Getting into mythology there. Don't think it made much difference to their everyday life. .... compared to say my mother with two babies living near the docks on Merseyside. As for the royal family being part of the growth in sense of community. Give us a break Chris.

Brendon Harre said...

I tried to post this on interest.co.nz and for some reason the website was not co-operating.

Labour seem to be inching towards the compulsory acquisition of rural land at rural prices for much of their Kiwibuild. Note the use of the word 'greenfields' and the absence of brownfield targets. This doesn't seem like the usual left-wing speech of chasing density and ever rising land prices. This seems more like the expanding polycentric city with multi modal transport and housing types development process. Early days, hard to tell what it all means and what the voters will go for. But I think the next election will be interesting....

Phil Twyford argues Labour's plan to build 100,000 houses in 10 years could cut building costs by NZ$47,000 per home
http://www.interest.co.nz/news/69204/phil-twyford-argues-labours-plan-build-100000-houses-10-years-could-cut-building-costs-nz

"Labour would bring regular amounts of greenfields land onto the market and the Government would take a more hands-on role in the development process, he said.
"By utilising available Crown land, master planning new developments and by foregoing the developer’s margin, we can exercise more control over land price," he said."

Hugh I just tried to put up something on interest.co.nz but the website is not co-operating...

I think there is several issues with it. Do it too small and you end up doing a Hobsonville with its $1.4 land costs per hectare. Do it too big and you do not allow the private developers access to rural land at rural land prices. This is what killed this process off last time the Labour government tried it in the 1930s and 40s.

See the cartoon in the following link http://www.thesustainabilitysociety.org.nz/conference/2007/papers/HARRIS-Lost%20City.pdf there was a big political backlash, even though the economics of it seem to be working.

I am not sure how committed Labour is in going this direction. Is Labour going back to its roots?

jh said...


"the solidarities born of depression and war"
....
I think it goes deeper than that Chris but you have first to accept the teachings of evolutionary psychology: the mind evolved during the Pleistocene when people lived in small groups of people who were just like themselves. Experiments show that the hormone oxcytocin creates outergroup prejudices and intergroup bias. That's why NZr's favour Anglo-Saxon migrants. It works the other way also.

The ordinary people value their national identity as the people of the place; it provides security to know that the borders are secure and that they wont give citizenship cheaply. This is at odds with elites who have the ability to live the best life wherever they wish.

Victor said...

Mr Ledgerton

"The royal family and the one bomb on Buckingham Palace. Getting into mythology there."

But the point of Chris's article is surely that it's all about mythology (aka perception).

So can we create a mythos that transcends differences of ethnicity, race and origins?

jh seems to think that we can't. Indeed, by his view, to seek to do so is to fly in the face of biology.

He may be right. But I hope for all our sakes that he's wrong.

Richard Christie said...

Re the Royal family and bombing.

It doesn't much matter much if their personal risk is overstated in the article or not, it was effective propaganda at the time and was but one of the many factors driving post depression new deals and post WW2 social contract.

I suspect the embracement of the welfare state ran deeper here in NZ due to the colonial mindset of those who had already settled here in order to flee the almost fossilised European class structures.

It's a pity we allowed our collective memories to be overridden by an agenda foisted upon us by stealth and by, for a large measure, deceit.




Guerilla Surgeon said...

No Victor, we don't need a transcending myth. That's what the Nazis had, that's what Stalin hand, and look what they did. These perceptions are generally used to make the working class think that they have some stake in society other than supplying profits for the people in charge.

jh said...

As for the royal family being part of the growth in sense of community. Give us a break Chris.
.....
Well community at the local level fits into a national identity. It doesn't end after 3 blocks.

jh said...

So can we create a mythos that transcends differences of ethnicity, race and origins?

jh seems to think that we can't. Indeed, by his view, to seek to do so is to fly in the face of biology.

He may be right. But I hope for all our sakes that he's wrong.
....................
Context is everything. Why are Canada/ NZ Australia etc destination countries and why are the others source countries and why should the people of those countries welcome them? Are you going to suppress dissent (align yourself with a business elite) and brainwash the population victor. Are you going to say agglomeration benefits with a straight face??

jh said...

Evolutionary psychologists argue that the brain is a physical system with built-in neural circuits designed to generate environmentally appropriate behavior. These neural circuits are specialized for handling different adaptive problems, and most brain functioning is unconscious. Because our brains evolved to handle problems faced by our Stone Age ancestors, some innate behaviors are maladaptive in the modern world. These range from our tendency to divide people into in-groups and out-groups to our sweet tooth, which helped our ancestors select ripe fruit in a world where food was scarce, but leads to obesity for many in societies where food is abundant. Innate brain modules exist for activities such as social learning, language, feeding, mating, and many other unconscious behaviors. Many of these neural circuits have been mapped by brain scans and by clinical studies of brain-damaged people.
Found here:
http://reason.com/archives/2002/10/01/biology-vs-the-blank-slate
In answer to Victor, if the in-group out-group behaviour is maladaptive can we overcome it? Firstly that would apply to all parties. Secondly:Why?
I have no objection to foreigners arriving on our shores and settling when they are on terms that genuinely benefit us. But I do object when it is done for business (they bring life savings earned off shore and "invest" in an infrastructure serviced property) or as part of a large ideologically driven social experiment (for it- good; opposed racist).

Anonymous said...

NOW on this one you hit the spot and target, Chris, yes 'the nerve' that is the core of the major problems we have.

There is much talk about "New Zealand" and "New Zealanders" and "us" and "community", but what does all that mean? It means damned LITTLE, as New Zealand, like most western countries, is no longer the one and united society it once was! It is diversified beyond recognition, through waves of migration and cultural influx and changes, that also forced governments to change laws, so that discrimination and other wrongs are now totally illegal, fair enough.

What it though also means is, we have house and real estate buyers allowed to buy properties here, while not even living here, for investment. We have people also from all parts of the world buy farmland, forests, invest in this that and the other, and many have NO connection to the average person living and working here.

This is IMPORTANT! The disconnection between residents and citizens living here, and the ones that may not be so, and also the ones owning stuff, and those not owning stuff, same as other factors, this creates huge divides. I have come to this place in 1981, and gosh, has New Zealand changed. It has only partly changed for the better, but much has been for the worse.

There is NO more unity, no collective spirit in too many places (apart from some), and there is no social cohesion anymore. Now this is not to be blamed on nanny state, it is due to the capitalist, competitive, divisive and consumerist lifestyle changes various governments brought in, none else.

It is user pays and taxpayers frown on beneficiaries and others, costing them too much. It is DIVISION, and none else, and the migrants we encourage to come here, they are selected from a pool that also fit the compete, fight, succeed, survive or die mentality, none else. Sick and disabled are sorted out before they get PR or citizenship, some told to leave as media stories revealed, no matter what they can do and invested here.

So dear old Kiwis, go on about Mein Kampf as collectible item at Dotcom's mansion or in Europe, what better ideology do you follow these days?

jh said...

If a tendency to xenophobia is innate why aren’t our intellectual and social elite xenophobic? Ans. They are: the arrow points downwards at people like themselves.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

There are two major forces at work in the world today, globalism and localism. Unfortunately (or not), the Nation state is caught in the middle :-).

Loz said...

I’m not enamoured to believing diversity has fractured a collective sense of identity. As Rudyard Kipling observed, “All good people agree, And all good people say, All nice people, like Us, are We, And every-one else is They”. New Zealand’s somewhat reactionary mainstream didn't view people of colour or Asians as representative of the nation a century ago, but broad doses of marginalisation were applied uniformly to look down upon almost everyone. The group of “they” included Wogs, Dagos, Huns, Jews, Fenians (Catholics), Natives, Micks, Ching-chong Chinamen as well as the Hoi polloi and Reds. If for some reason, someone couldn't be looked down upon because of their ethnic, political or religious background they could be excluded from the group of “we” by being drunkards, rotters, wasters, and harlots. Yet, to consider our long past society to be necessarily demeaning would be a revisionist mistake. We did have a strong local community and even the Chinese (who would have to be the most persecuted group in New Zealand's history) were accepted as townsfolk with unique niche.

We seem to have always had a duality of fracturing the world around us to place our own identity in the group of the deserving. But, we also exhibited altruism and genuine caring toward others who we don’t identify with (as long as they are seen as non-threatening). I’m not certain that at any stage in New Zealand’s past that many other than the most politically astute felt that society was a homogenous mix of “we, the people”.

The philosophy of social contract is be nature collective but it’s a moral and economic understanding. A great example of the belief was published in the Maoriland worker of 1920.

I don’t believe that the Depression or the War necessarily forged any community sense of identity apart from uniting and focusing the nation on who the “them” really were. In doing so, the fractures of diversity and politics of identity were subsumed by a clear understanding that identifiable and powerful groups were pursuing their own interests at the interests of “ordinary” people.

Victor said...

GS

I'm unaware of any societies without some widely held mythology that helps bind people together.
Could you please supply an example?

jh

"Are you going to suppress dissent (align yourself with a business elite) and brainwash the population victor"

I don't understand why you think I would so align myself.

New Zealand is a country of mixed ethnicity and has been so since the early nineteenth century. We live, moreover, in a world of huge demographic flows and changes that inevitably impact on our lives, through trade, culture and technology.

If, in this jumbled-up world, we don't learn to live side by side and regard each other as the ethical equivalent of kin, the consequences for our species will not be pleasant.

And, in fact, there's a precedent for triumphing over our biological impulses in the emergence of states and later of urbanised and industrialised national communities out of clan and tribal sodalities.

The question remains, though, as to whether we can recreate the ethic of social responsibility that loomed so large in the mid-century politics of most advanced nations, now that we dwell in even less homogenous societies than those of the 1950s.

I hope the answer is in the affirmative. If not, your "business elites" will be rubbing their hands with glee. And not just in New Zealand.

Anonymous said...

Years ago I was overseas and asked if I would like to meet some other kiwis dining at the same place. I was led to table with some old Chinese men -- a bit of small talk followed before I asked where the kiwis were. One said "Me". I asked where from "Greymouth, I'm a coaster. My grandfather used to deliver coal on a dray there. My dad studied law before he took us to Hong Kong when I was in my teens"
I'm a coaster too. I told him he'd be always welcomed back home. But he already knew. It doesn't matter if you're Irish Italian German Maori or black white brown or brindle we have more in common as coasters than we do with anybody from over the hill.
He'd gone on to own his own shipping company. Not bad for a boy from the Grey.

Helen saw us as ferals.

Mick

jh said...

Loz Says:
I’m not enamoured to believing diversity has fractured a collective sense of identity
Humans have a territorial instinct so for those with a preception of who is (or was) a New Zealnder, they may feel their national identity has been violated.

The group of “they” included Wogs, Dagos, Huns, Jews, Fenians (Catholics), Natives, Micks, Ching-chong Chinamen as well as the Hoi polloi and Reds

the issue of how 'mainstream” treats people amongst us is different from the issue (justification) of mass migration. You seem to be trying to make a case for nullifying the views of mainstream NZ?

The Blank Slate and Noble Savage are discussed here:
http://reason.com/archives/2002/10/01/biology-vs-the-blank-slate

jh said...


After sitting on his troubling "massive" study for five years, Putnam says we should forge ahead with diversity but we need to bolster the socialising process or it will take "50 years based on past experience"
http://www.ncl.org/publications/ncr/98-1/Putnam.pdf

Frank Salter says:
"Indirect evidence that the ghost of Franz Boas still haunts the antipodean ivory tower comes from leading scholars of ethnicity and nationalism who I contacted. They could not name one Australian scholar who professes biosocial theory. This is in line with the survey reported in the first essay in this series in the June issue.[2] No political science or sociology department reported a scholar basing his or her research or teaching on behavioural biology. The skew towards Marxist and other environmental theories means that scholars of nationality do not know what to do with the wealth of findings drawn from evolutionary psychology, ethology, and sociobiology—except ignore them."
http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2012/11/the-war-against-human-nature-iii/

Guerilla Surgeon said...

I didn't say countries were without myths, but I was making the point that they do rather more harm than good. The American myth has led to Exceptionalism and Dominionism and a lot of rash foreign adventures. The British myth resulted in their hanging on to the Empire far too long. The German Italian and Imperial Japanese myths led to World War II, and the mother Russia myth as reintroduced by Stalin is causing problems even today.
Whether we need such myths today is a matter of opinion. They were obviously needed when nationstates were beginning to develop, because as you possibly know countries like Britain, Italy and Germany were not particularly united by anything much apart from language. If we do have to have them, we should be very very careful what sort of myth we choose. Our national myth has gotten us involved into one, maybe 2 wars we shouldn't have bothered with. And our egalitarian myth has I suspect promoted cynicism amongst the young.
As I said in a previous post, one of the factors very active in today's society is regionalism or localism. This is something that the national myth (and standing armies) was designed to suppress. It doesn't seem to have worked :-).
There are countries which maybe still need national myths. Papua New Guinea for instance. But in one sense, why bother when regionalism is coming back into fashion :-).
The problem with myths is that they are eminently exploitable by unscrupulous people. Perhaps you would like to suggest a New Zealand myth which will unify the country, yet not allow demagogues to use it for their own ends?

jh said...

Victor says:
I don't understand why you think I would so align myself.

It just so happens that it is Labour and the Greens and a (liberal news media) that gives the go ahead to Nationals population policies by refusing to provide any counter argument.

New Zealand is a country of mixed ethnicity and has been so since the early nineteenth century.
but policy changed in 1987.

We live, moreover, in a world of huge demographic flows and changes that inevitably impact on our lives, through trade, culture and technology.

we live in a world of diffusion where people come to countries with a better environment (due to a low population) and higher standard of living (Filipino's). The arguments about "needed skills" are half truths as many are coming to build houses for migrants. Evidence for the benefits of immigration are equivocal yet the political elite ignore the negative.

If, in this jumbled-up world, we don't learn to live side by side and regard each other as the ethical equivalent of kin, the consequences for our species will not be pleasant.

it comes down to the rationale.
At a council meeting about rezoning the City Council man was asked if population increase is government policy. He replied that "we need population increase to increase the wealth and grow the economy. And we have immigration" so I suppose it is". Someone shouted "That is a load of bull-shit! Immigration is for property investors and developers. It's not for our benefit!"
People with that paradigm wont be swayed by arguments about cultural enrichment and ethnic food. You would have to argue the benefits of diversity and economic arguments for mass migration but may not pass everyone's smell test. More likely the shouter would be dismissed as a racist when it is suspected he suffers from an evolutionary disorder, for which a good dose of progressive experience of the other is the cure.

And, in fact, there's a precedent for triumphing over our biological impulses in the emergence of states and later of urbanised and industrialised national communities out of clan and tribal sodalities.

the red hair of the English comes from the Norsemen but a lot of drama happened in between.

Victor said...

GS

"As I said in a previous post, one of the factors very active in today's society is regionalism or localism. This is something that the national myth (and standing armies) was designed to suppress."

So are you saying that it's OK to feel a common sense of identity with your fellow Catalans or Venetians but not with your fellow Spaniards or Italians?

If so, why?

If not, what are you saying?

"The problem with myths is that they are eminently exploitable by unscrupulous people."

Agreed. But we could make the same point about a huge range of other physical or psychological phenomena which are similarly inherent to human life.

"Perhaps you would like to suggest a New Zealand myth which will unify the country, yet not allow demagogues to use it for their own ends?"

No I can't. Our species has the ability to corrupt, manipulate and exploit just about every idea going. Similarly, I can't envisage a society without national or regional myths of some sort or other.

But, without myths of any sort,how could you persuade people to forgo their own advantage for a perceived greater good?

Is there anything to which you could appeal which wouldn't be in some sense mythic?

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"So are you saying that it's OK to feel a common sense of identity with your fellow Catalans or Venetians but not with your fellow Spaniards or Italians?"

No.

"If not, what are you saying?"

That national myths don't necessarily work.
"But, without myths of any sort,how could you persuade people to forgo their own advantage for a perceived greater good?"

People forgo their own advantage for a perceived greater good for myths? I suspect they do it for a number of reasons and the national myths may in fact be one, but a very minor one. But, if as you seem to believe that is the main reason, perhaps we should start telling people the truth about their own advantage and the greater good.



Loz said...

jh: I understand the argument that thinking has a biological component but when you draw upon a sense of national identity it only reinforces that the construct of "them" and "us" is based on the prevalence of ideas. The idea of nationalism (that you mention in regard to a sense of national identity being violated) has been around for a very brief period in world affairs and it also furthers the acceptance that large numbers of people we have never met or seen are the same as us. The idea of "national identity" has no basis in biology as the nation is itself determined by political ideas.

The Charterists and Socialist movements that led to the formation of an egalitarian natured New Zealand never accepted nationalism as a construct. Nationalism and tribalism has always been the soil from which fascism has grown. There may well be a good argument to suggest that the first impulse for powerless human beings is toward fascism, I won’t disagree, but the history of the world since the Renaissance has clearly shown that the power of ideas and not biology plays a much bigger role in creating the world we live in.

The point that I made was simply that the suggestion that New Zealand now has a fragmented community because of diversity (or as you suggest mass immigration) is false. Not only is the population composed of a much smaller percentage of immigrants now than it was in 1900 and the culture and language differences between the English, Scots, Irish, Welsh, French, Germans, Norse, Chinese, Greeks and Maori were much greater than any effects of migration today. The rise of the labour movement demonstrated that extremely diverse peoples could find unity in the idea that working people from all backgrounds had more in common with each other than they did with their local property owning class.

The labour movement was able to successfully appeal to ideas of justice, fairness and acting on the better angels of our nature toward all working people, regardless of their ethnic background. The movement required a galvanising idea of equality that's been missing from the polemic of New Zealand's left since the 1980's but that doesn’t mean that it didn't once exist.

Victor said...

jh

I repeat that you might be right about the difficulties of trying to protect or resurrect an ethic of social solidarity and responsibility in a culturally and ethnically heterogeneous society.

Yet we have no alternative but to try.

Even if we were to block all further immigration, we would still have a far more heterogeneous society than in what I know you to regard as the halcyon days of your youth.

So, unless you were to ethically "cleanse" New Zealand, the problem that preoccupies you would not go away, even though you might feel you had prevented it getting worse from your perspective.

Victor said...

GS

I'm not wholly in disagreement with you, although you're a bit more convinced about human rationality than I happen to be.

However, I was not simply referring to myths of national identity but to the vast web of individual, family, local, regional, national and transnational narratives and half truths that keep us going, provide us with a sense of self-hood and form the basis around which we cohere with people other than our immediate kin.

Personally, I don't think I'd be capable of getting out of bed in the morning without a strong dose of the mythic. But you might be made of sterner stuff than I.

Moreover, there are clearly times and places where national myths achieve, for good or ill, an undeniable centrality and import. Britain in 1940 is an obvious case in point.

We could argue about the specifics of that situation but I doubt whether I'm capable of absolute objectivity as I owe my life to the British people's willingness to resist Hitler and am incapable of jettisoning my profound sense of gratitude.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Victor, you and I obviously have different definitions of myth. I don't think of the relationships I have with family and friends and people at work has in any way mythical. I don't particularly need a myth to value them.
And I'm not at all sure what you expect people to do without a myth. Not pay their taxes? Sell government secrets? Abandon their children?
There are also reasons to value living in a secular democracy without a national myth. I think if there were a credible threat from outside to New Zealand I would probably join the home guard or something, simply because I like living in a country which gives me a certain amount of personal freedom. Though of course whenever the group is under threat, myths inevitably come into play. And I pay my taxes partly because the necessary part of making society run, and partly because the government would commit violence on my person if I didn't. :-)

Victor said...

GS

"And I'm not at all sure what you expect people to do without a myth. Not pay their taxes? Sell government secrets? Abandon their children?"

Scroll back to how our exchange started, in response to Chris's post.

His argument was that citizens of culturally heterogeneous societies might lack the will to vote and pay for social provisions that primarily benefit people viewed as culturally and ethnically different to themselves.

So that, to my mind, answers your question as to what I expect people NOT to do if they don't share a sense of belonging to the same sodality.

To my mind that makes it all about "myth" but you might prefer a different word. Lets not get too fixated on semantics.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Victor, scroll back to my last sentence in my last post.
And if you want to look at places where people DON'T pay taxes, look at Greece and Italy. Both of which have myths the likes of which New Zealand could only aspire to. :-) And both fairly ethnically homogenous. Yet one of the major reasons that they are in the shit economically is that people simply didn't pay their taxes. And Italy has one of the largest black/grey economies in Europe(if not the largest, but I can't account for ex-communist countries.) I'm talking about ordinary middle-class people here, not huge corporations who don't pay taxes as a matter of course just about everywhere. They don't seem to have any adherence to national myths at all.
Yes lets not worry too much about semantics, but I must say that you, in common with many people of faith, tend to use words that I know the meanings of, but in combinations that make no sense to me :-).

Victor said...

Um.. er… I’m not sure why you define me as a person of faith, a description that I’m in no position to confirm or deny. But I would certainly deny having put forward a religious argument on this thread.

Indeed, I don’t think I’ve ever put forward an argument based on religious faith on this website. When you and I crossed swords on the issue of ethical obligation earlier this year, I was arguing from the point of view of philosophic scepticism.

To be honest, I wasn’t aware that I was using the term “myth” in a way that was either obscure or unusual. I obviously wasn’t using it to describe supernatural phenomena. Nor was I using it to describe things that are inherently without truth, although that might be “true” of many myths.

Put me on the spot and demand that I define what I intended by use of the term “myth” and I’d probably come up with something like: “An idealised and partial view of reality that provides the believer(s) with a sense of self, meaning and (in many cases) belonging.”

Now, if that usage seems obscure or unusual to an educated bloke such as yourself, it’s probably best if I stopped using it.

As to why people in some societies don’t tend to pay their taxes, that’s a different topic to that of why they might be willing or unwilling to vote for parties that favour high levels of progressive taxation for spending on social purposes.

It’s that latter topic that I’ve been referring to, in response to Chris’s article and the various interjections from “jh”. As I’m sure you’re aware, there’s been a lot of stuff written over recent years on the subject of the decline of social solidarity, with reference to ethnic diversity. As you can see from this discussion, I demur from what I take to be jh’s biological determinism, whilst acknowledging that kinship and cultural similarity can’t be ignored.

Turning to the point you’ve just raised, I agree there are societies in which people don’t tend to pay their taxes and never have tended so to do, irrespective of how high those taxes are or the purposes for which such revenue was being sought.

Obviously a sense of common identity is only one of the factors determining this. But neither Greece nor Italy, despite their ancientness, are long-established examples of law-abiding, representative government within clearly defined geographical boundaries.

As a political entity New Zealand
is actually older than modern Italy and older than Greece in its current geographical shape. Moreover, it's inherited a huge weight of cultural and institutional heritage from the UK, homeland of either the first or second modern state (depending on how you rate the Dutch).

I suspect that these (and a whole range of other cultural and historical factors) will help determine people’s sense of their responsibilities as citizens. And, of course, the effectiveness of tax collection also plays a role.

By the way, I think that “Loz” has come up with by far the best retort to biological determinism on this thread.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Sorry Victor, I wasn't accusing you of being a person of faith, I should have said in common with people of faith perhaps – my bad.

You are obviously using myth innocent more specialised way that I would, perhaps you should call it national myth. But all I was saying was it doesn't have a great deal of effect on the way people behave necessarily, except to outsiders perhaps.

The United States obviously takes national myths to extremes, but it's only been partially successful in unifying the country, because racial and religious myths often override it.

Obviously Greece and Italy are not that old as nation states, but the myths go back a long, long way. And they still can't get it together.

There is a case to be made for biological determinism, that is Dawkins said – we are human beings we can overcome biological determinism.

Personally I think national myths are a waste of time, we should concentrate on building a proper civil society based on honesty and decency. To be honest I don't care what people THINK about other ethnic or religious groups, as long as they treat them properly – with reference to the golden rule.

Victor said...

GS

No apology is due. Apart from anything else, I probably am a “person of faith” from your perspective, as I’m not a determined and convinced Atheist.

On the other hand, I do try to ensure that any arguments I come up with hold water from a secular perspective. The same goes for my choice of language.

If we had world enough and time, I could attempt to define my theological perspective more closely. But I doubt it would be of any interest to anyone other than myself.

Apart from that, I largely agree with you and, in particular, with your final paragraph.

The only caveat I would make is that the sense of living in “a proper civil society based on honesty and decency” can itself become a defining “myth” in the sense that I was using the word. In fact, I believe it has become that, to some extent, both here in New Zealand and in a number of other countries (e.g. Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands etc.).

And, of course, it’s a two-edged sword. On the one hand it can lead to complacency and to turning a blind eye to things that need urgent fixing. But, on the other hand, it can also provide a standard to which we can aspire.

But I would certainly agree that it’s more important to work towards the goals you’ve outlined than to sit around patting ourselves on the back.