 |
Love and politicians who walk on by ...
 Many commentators and members of parliament have sought to make little of some of David Cameron's statements concerning the causes of social marginalisation which lead to juvenile offending and crime. It is as if the word love is not understood by many and indeed from the slightly awkward references, chuckling sarcasm which surrounds references to "love" and "hugging hoodies" by parliamentarians belies their own embarassment with such concepts and, of concern, their apparent inability to understand the concepts involved. More abusive is the time-tested default Pavlovian reactions of all political party members to publicly discount any ideas from a member of any other political party.
Love is an imperative of human relations and in the context of politics the application of the word would seem to fall within the normal definitions of attachment, liking, paternal benevolence (where benovolence means a desire to do good or a charitable feeling), and affectionate devotion. To hug also has the sense of exhibiting fondness, affection and to keep close. It is difficult to see much wrong with this David's expressed sentiment as being what he considers to be lacking in the relationship between some youth and their families and society in general. This topic is of increasing importance because, so far, all political parties have failed to address the issue of youth alienation and "anti-social" behaviour adequately.
This state of affairs is perhaps exacerbated by the fact that many people in Parliament were reared by institutions rather than by their families. Thus in Britain there is a habit, one avoids referring to this as a tradition, on the part of some families in delegating the bringing up of their own children, to institutions such as boarding schools. For the children who pass through such institutions the vital developmental mechanisms which support their emotional and intellectual development is handed over to strangers who are paid by families to undertake this task. The output of such institutions tend to "re-discover" family only when they have children of their own. There is no denying however, that such people lack the intimate experience of being brought up by their family or of the deeper appreciation of trust, as an aspect of love, which daily family life can impart.
Unlike many families, most institutions, be they political parties or boarding schools, are essentially mass-production facilities where discipline and punishment were important aspects of "management"; discipline based upon the threat of punishment, often of a physical kind, is seen to be a normal basis for ensuring harmony. Such people develop the notion that all should follow arbitrarily imposed institututional rules or else face the punishment without question; not exactly a formula for a happy civilization. The products of such institutions cannot be blamed for considering these little collectives to be a microcosm of society in general when, of course, they lie far from it. Most families, on the other hand, seldom operate on the basis of such punishment-based convenience. In most families most siblings are recognised to be distinct characters. The natural basis for handling a situation where any member of the family imposes on others, is for the parents or older siblings to appeal to the conscience of the person concerned. This is invariably based upon a process of bringing them to appreciate how they have upset or harmed another and for them to sense, therefore, the positive benefits and importance of being more considerate; within families consideration for others is normally reciprocated and it becomes a self-generating basis for developing trust and confidence. This is a process which is vital to the upbringing of individuals and it requires families to remain faithful to the principle and above all to dedicate time, devoted to the person in question. Quick fixes are not attempted since this would only reflect apathy and, as all know, they do not work.
Institutionalization
An institutional approach to society creates a trust in institutions and subjects the management of human relations to heirarchical principles and institutional processes. Political parties as institutions have a default instinct to gain and hold on to power. They tend to have a rigid heirarchy and collectivist approach which is hardly relevant to family-level issues nor, therefore, conducive to social harmony. Whereas much in British socialism of the 1950s contained an idealism of the concept of centralization turning society into a "large family" there was also, and remains, a significant component founded on hatred and jealousy on the part of those without of those with wealth, education, status and power. So whereas some wealthier families institutionalize their children the class-struggle, so-called, embodied in the old Labour party have deepened a general institutionalization. This places particular emphasis on the power of the party as the means whereby its own heirarchy can achieve, occupy the seats of power and enjoy associated wealth and status which they claim to abhor.
The overall outcome, throughout the political party spectrum seems to be an indolence of mind, a passionless sense reflecting an open indifference, an insensibility to suffering and even some fear of expressing any emotion with respect to the predicament of those of society's unfortunate. People confuse the fact that many aspects of care for the unfortunate are "handled" by various institutions or non-governmental organizations, with a civilised society. Under such circumstances most in society have been distanced from any direct role of concern or decisions which help others. That some public institution might exist to help those who are less fortunate becomes an excuse for people not to concern themselves directly with the plight of others. As in youth crime, institutionalization has generated a general societal apathy. It is this, perhaps, which has created what David refers to Britain as a "walk on by society".
The inability of the Labour party and indeed, Liberal Democrats, to address David Cameron's remarks at the appropriate level, shows up the awful reality of the limited perceptions, experience and priorities of such members of parliament. The worrying factor is that many in the Conservative party will share the cynicism so brazenly exposed in inept statements by the other party representatives.
For such people if there is disharmony, then the solution is to identify the people concerned and to punish them. Without any appeals to conscience such punishment can not instill any sense of consideration or any concept of reciprocity, since society's only response has been to punish. So those punished learn that society obtains what it desires by punishing, through force if you like, and thereby sets a destructive example which can have no beneficial outcome.
Until those who claim to represent the people of Britain in parliament get to grips with their own serious shortcomings, as reflected in their blind tendency to see more legislation and punishment as solutions to the outcome of past failures of inept legislation and punishments, they will continue to serve us badly.
|
|