The Roots of Blairism
Critique | 18.03.2002 19:35
There have been hints recently that the feeble 'Old' Labour party wants to start thinking about getting rid of Blair, but would it make much difference ? The system he presides over was being built before he took power and may continue after his political demise.
But what is it ? Neo- capitalism ? Weimarism ? Post- democracy ? Managerialism ? Oligarchy ? All these terms have been suggested but a book written half a century ago may have got the root of it. I'll quote W H Whyte verbatim: see what you think.
**********************************
"This book is about the Organization Man. If the term is vague it is because I can think of no other way to describe the people I am talking about... These people only work for The Organization. The ones I am talking about BELONG to it as well. They are the ones of our middle class who have left home, spirituallya nd physically, to take the vows of organization life...
The corporation man is the most conspicuous example, but he is only one, for the collectivization so visible in the corporation has affected almost every field of work... the word 'collective' most of them cant bring themselves to use- except to describe foreign countries or organizations [ My NB: esp those with socialist connotations !]...
Only by using the language of individualism to describe the collective can he stave off the the thought that he himself is in a collective as pervading as any ever dreamed of... the older generation may need to convince itself; the younger generation does not. When a young man states that to make a living you must do what someone else wants you to do, he states it as an inherently good proposition...
The Organization Man seeks a redefinition of his place on earth- a faith that will satisfy him... I am going to call it the SOCIAL ETHIC...
By Social Ethic I mean that contemporary body of thought that makes morally legitimate the pressures of society against the individual. Its major propositions are three: a belief in the group as the source of creativity; in 'belongingness' as the ultimate need of the individual; and a belief in the application of science to achieve it...
In the Socail Ethic i am describing, mans obligation is in the here and now; his duty is not so much to the community in the broad sense but to the actual, physical one around him... it is not enough now that he belong; he wants to belong TOGETHER...
The central fallacy lies in what can be called false collectivisation. We are confusing an abstraction with a reality. In many situations the fact of groupness is only co-incidental... The most misguided attempt at false collectivization is the current (1956) attempt to se the group as a creative vehicle Can it be ? People very rarely think in groups; they talk, but they do not create...
Not just as something expediant, but as something RIGHT, the organization transients have put social usefullness at the core of their beliefs. Adaptation has become more than a necessity; it has become almost a constant... THE BASIS OF THE SOCIAL ETHIC IS NOT CONFORMITY BUT A SENSE OF MORAL IMPERATIVE...
No one wants to see the old authoritarian return [ My NB: "18 years of Thatcherism"] but at least it could be said that he wanted primarily your sweat. The new man wants your soul.
It is delusory: It is easy to fight obvious tyranny; it is not so easy to fight benevolence... It is static: the Organization has of itself no dynamic. It is self- destructive: The quest for normality is one of the great breeders of neuroses..."
*******************
Thus wrote William Whyte in 1956. The actual foundations of balirism were being laid long before New Labour ever appeared, and much of the above was being developed by Labourites in the 1980s and 1990s. Having lost their old traditioonal proletarian base, they began to create a new one of free-floating "Ethics". Blair was perhaps chosen for the job rather than he producing our current "Third Way" regime. We need to consider how it may develop even after he leaves No. 10.
But what is it ? Neo- capitalism ? Weimarism ? Post- democracy ? Managerialism ? Oligarchy ? All these terms have been suggested but a book written half a century ago may have got the root of it. I'll quote W H Whyte verbatim: see what you think.
**********************************
"This book is about the Organization Man. If the term is vague it is because I can think of no other way to describe the people I am talking about... These people only work for The Organization. The ones I am talking about BELONG to it as well. They are the ones of our middle class who have left home, spirituallya nd physically, to take the vows of organization life...
The corporation man is the most conspicuous example, but he is only one, for the collectivization so visible in the corporation has affected almost every field of work... the word 'collective' most of them cant bring themselves to use- except to describe foreign countries or organizations [ My NB: esp those with socialist connotations !]...
Only by using the language of individualism to describe the collective can he stave off the the thought that he himself is in a collective as pervading as any ever dreamed of... the older generation may need to convince itself; the younger generation does not. When a young man states that to make a living you must do what someone else wants you to do, he states it as an inherently good proposition...
The Organization Man seeks a redefinition of his place on earth- a faith that will satisfy him... I am going to call it the SOCIAL ETHIC...
By Social Ethic I mean that contemporary body of thought that makes morally legitimate the pressures of society against the individual. Its major propositions are three: a belief in the group as the source of creativity; in 'belongingness' as the ultimate need of the individual; and a belief in the application of science to achieve it...
In the Socail Ethic i am describing, mans obligation is in the here and now; his duty is not so much to the community in the broad sense but to the actual, physical one around him... it is not enough now that he belong; he wants to belong TOGETHER...
The central fallacy lies in what can be called false collectivisation. We are confusing an abstraction with a reality. In many situations the fact of groupness is only co-incidental... The most misguided attempt at false collectivization is the current (1956) attempt to se the group as a creative vehicle Can it be ? People very rarely think in groups; they talk, but they do not create...
Not just as something expediant, but as something RIGHT, the organization transients have put social usefullness at the core of their beliefs. Adaptation has become more than a necessity; it has become almost a constant... THE BASIS OF THE SOCIAL ETHIC IS NOT CONFORMITY BUT A SENSE OF MORAL IMPERATIVE...
No one wants to see the old authoritarian return [ My NB: "18 years of Thatcherism"] but at least it could be said that he wanted primarily your sweat. The new man wants your soul.
It is delusory: It is easy to fight obvious tyranny; it is not so easy to fight benevolence... It is static: the Organization has of itself no dynamic. It is self- destructive: The quest for normality is one of the great breeders of neuroses..."
*******************
Thus wrote William Whyte in 1956. The actual foundations of balirism were being laid long before New Labour ever appeared, and much of the above was being developed by Labourites in the 1980s and 1990s. Having lost their old traditioonal proletarian base, they began to create a new one of free-floating "Ethics". Blair was perhaps chosen for the job rather than he producing our current "Third Way" regime. We need to consider how it may develop even after he leaves No. 10.
Critique
