News of Margaret Thatcher’s death was received with a
mixture of grief, relief and in some less tasteful cases, triumph and
celebrations. My personal reaction was one of mild interest, veering on
indifference. After all, it was surely only a matter of time before this 87
year old woman, whose latter years had been plagued with ill-health, would pass
away.
British politicians were quick to make their views heard.
The Prime Minister paid tribute to her “lion-hearted love for this country”,
whilst the leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband, hailed the “extraordinary
life and unique contribution of Margaret Thatcher”. There was certainly an air
of the Oxford debating club ‘good show old chap’ about the proceedings. In
fact, there was only one Labour politician who took the opportunity to say anything
negative. Glenda Jackson launched a scathing attack on the “social, economic
and spiritual damage” caused by Margaret Thatcher and the enduring legacy of
Thatcherism.
Now anybody reading this blog will be all too familiar with
the social and economic arguments against Thatcherism: the creation of a vast
underclass through rapid deindustrialisation, the enormous growth in inequality
and the well-documented negative impact of this on health, well-being and crime
(amongst many other indicators) and the creation of an over-reliance on the
financial industries which has led to a deeply fractured and unbalanced British
economy. That is why it is the third aspect of Ms Jackson’s analysis, the
“spiritual damage” caused by Thatcherism, which intrigued me the most and is
one which merits further discussion.
Qualitative shifts in society since Margaret Thatcher’s
premiership can most easily be observed through surveys like British Social Attitudes (BSA). A
snapshot of changes in attitudes over the past 25 years reveals how certain
Thatcherite sentiments appear to have become more engrained in popular psyche.
An obvious example of this is the hardened approach to the unemployed – a group
most vilified under Thatcherism. According to the BSA, in 1983 46% of people
thought unemployment benefits were too low and caused hardship, compared to 26%
in 2007. Similarly, in 1983 35% thought benefit levels were ‘too high and
discouraged job finding’, compared to 57% in 2007 (see here).
Is this what Ms Jackson meant when she referred to the
‘spiritual damage’ of Thatcherism - a hardening of attitudes towards one’s
fellow man and a greater tendency to blame the individual for collective
failings? Social scientists may be more inclined to describe this as a shift in
normative rather than spiritual values and indeed perhaps this was what Glenda
Jackson meant. She may have been evoking the idea of ‘spirit’ portrayed in Ken
Loach’s recent film “The Spirit of ‘45”. In this sense ‘spiritual’ might have
had nostalgic, as opposed to religious connotations and simply referred to the decline
of the collectivist impulses of the British people.
However, it is worth considering Ms Jackson’s comments in
the context of other societal changes that have occurred over the past thirty
years. Research by Professor Michael King from University College London shows
that the ‘spiritual, but not religious’ now represents a major strand of public
opinion (20% of Britons, see here). What is more, the
importance of spirituality has extended for many people to major areas of
public life. As the former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams remarks in
his recent book ‘Faith in the Public Square’:
“The spiritual
dimension of all sorts of things, from school education to business practice,
is recognised more and more seriously” (2012:
85).
Returning again to the question of the spiritual damage that
Ms Jackson accused Thatcherism of inflicting, there is in the broadest sense a
spiritual argument against the promotion of a more unequal society. Indeed,
conversely, the quest for greater equality has long been associated with
ethical and spiritual righteousness. Champions of equality like Nelson Mandela
stand out as figures of great moral worth. In religious traditions, equality is
a value to which people are encouraged to aspire, following the examples of
great spiritual leaders like Jesus Christ. All peoples are seen to be created
in the image of God possessing souls of equal worth, thus religious followers
are called upon to respect others and create conditions in which all can
flourish.
I was struck by Robert de Vries’ recent post on Inequalities (see here)
about the research into ‘infrahumanization’ – the denying or simplifying of
emotional identities of certain social groups (the homeless, poor people,
benefit claimants). In ‘spiritual’ terms this could be viewed as an attempt to
denigrate the soul of another, thus inequalities of this kind may be seen as an
affront not only to the individual but also to God.
But is it really possible for analysts in the fields of
social and public policy to engage constructively with such ideas? If so, then
why have they not received greater attention? There are undoubtedly many
reasons why ‘spiritual public policy’ is rarely discussed. Many public policy
analysts sit firmly in the Fabian tradition of using empirical evidence to
promote structural change. However, with one in five Britons claiming some form
of spiritual allegiance, might it not be time to engage seriously with
theological arguments for policy interventions?

No comments:
Post a Comment