The Big Society – Community or Cop-out?

 Society is falling apart. There is little interest in and concern for members of localities which would once be thought of as “neighbourhoods” or “communities”. Everyone is out for themselves and normal acts of kindness have begun to stand out. Older people lament the passing of times when “standards” prevailed. People do not intervene when they might prevent something bad happening or facilitate something good. They do not see it as their responsibility, prerogative, outside their terms of reference morally and even be too afraid of the consequences of being caught up in something which does not directly concern them. 

We all want it fixed but we don’t want to do the fixing. 

We are all too busy, too poor, too tired, too ineffective. Those with the money and the power should take the initiative. Those with declared moral or religious beliefs should show an example and lead the way.

Looking after number one has become a natural reaction rather than a considered response. This is all very well until one has no resources to do the looking after or the ability is impaired by the impact of an uncaring society.

All the words we use for groups of people imply some degree of belonging – society, neighbourhood, community, groups, even gangs – some common purpose or shared interest. 

Standards are slipping. But how to reinstate them without a heavy handed religious or political regime which ensures compliance by use of coercion or punishment? How do we get back to basics? 

The purpose of law is to regulate society by protecting certain rights and defining responsibilities. The idea of a social contract is that individuals give up a certain amount of freedom and offer allegiance to the state in return for its benevolence and protection. This ideal is based on a voluntary concept to a degree. The notion is that the state promulgates the greater good of the majority and by implication protects minorities who are not acting against it, that everyone has some guaranteed basic rights at least which prevent inhuman or draconian treatment of those whose behaviour is deemed contrary to the public good and therefore they must be contained or restrained.

 So laws should be based on what is best for the majority and there is a basic concept of “rightness” about it, which implies a degree of moral desirability, but who decides what is “right”? I would suggest that religion holds the key – if you believe in God as supreme being then his word supercedes all human views and removes the subjective as to whether we left self-interest or greed to influence what we claim as desirable. There is no arguing with God. But of course in a godless society or one where different concepts of god may result in conflicting standards of moral or behavioural correctness, there is no one arbitrary source.

 The argument goes like this :

  • Standards are slipping
  • Wrong things are happening
  • Nothing is being done to stop it
  • The silent majority may be turning into a minority
  • The good people are like voices crying in the wilderness
  • The lunatics are taking over the asylum
  • Someone should do something about it
  • The government is corrupt and not representative
  • Institutionalised religion offers hypocrisy and is outmoded
  • We want things to change but don’t want to lead
  • How do we get our standards back to where we think they should be
  • If we ask everyone’s opinion and go with the majority they will not support us because the moral decline has swallowed them up or they know no different
  • How do we reassert what is right if the majority don’t actually agree or are too apathetic to express an opinion
  • Is right an independent moral concept or the collective will of the people
  • If the people have turned bad then their collective will is not right

So when is it right to ignore the majority view? 

Enter the Big Society, the new promotion of an alleged return to a caring sharing society. But why should the new selfish and greedy breed of “citizens” sign up to something which could easily look like a cheap form of providing services and care which ought to be the province of the state at a time when they want to save money?

Or should we look behind the slide into moral bankruptcy and see this as an attempt to re-establish the “old” standards before they are too far gone to resurrect? 

Communities are being broken down and families fragmented. Social support networks are often almost non existent – no wonder people are so stressed and feel isolated, in many instances they are. We should be looking for ways to keep people in  stable environment and a community of their choice, allowing them to trade on the benefits of generations where older relatives or at least friends can impart wisdom and skills. We should encourage more time to be with families instead of forcing people apart and women back to work thorough financial necessity instead of by choice and stop forcing kids into early education and structure. The days are gone when one wage earner could keep a family and the pace of life was less stressful. We have the technology to keep in touch with the whole world yet we often don’t know our neighbours. The welfare state has forgotten what welfare means and the media helps widen the social divide by encouraging the stigma attached to benefits. Our socialist forefathers must be spinning in their graves when they see what has been done to their high ideals.

 When families stayed together and shared values were the norm you never questioned it to this degree, you knew what was right or wrong whether or not you actually acted upon it. The acceptance of  breaking the rules, being wrong but not apologising at least gives a little integrity (if it can be called that) to the wrong-doer, the noble outlaw, the Robin Hood figures. If you are going to do something which is going to hurt someone else and that matters to you, then don’t do it, otherwise acknowledge that you realise the damage but are going to do it anyway – have the courage of your convictions.

How do you make people care? I’d say at times, with difficulty. They either do or they don’t, and you can’t make them only try to educate them into caring. Example is probably best – and if you ask me, the state is not setting a good example at all right now. The government seem to have every intention of abdicating their responsibility to their citizens, breaking their social contract and offloading their duties onto us, and if there is anything guaranteed to put people off caring, it’s being told they ought to, and especially by a body who are supposed to be doing the caring officially!