On 5th May British citizens will be asked to vote on their preferred voting system; First Past the Post (FPTP) or the Alternative Vote (AV). One of the boldest claims that the proponents of the AV make is that it will give voters “a stronger voice”.
If this were true (I have no idea if it is true I’m afraid) it would be an attractive offer to a lot of people. According to the Citizenship Survey just over a third (37 per cent) of the UK adult population believes they can influence decisions in their local area whereas almost three quarters (73 per cent) feel that it is important to have an influence and 44 per cent said they would like to be more involved in decisions made by councils affecting their local area.
Of course voting is only one part of this problem. There are a number of ways that we can influence the world around us ranging from voting to campaigning to getting out our brooms and cleaning the pavements ourselves.
The government has recognised this and have announced that they will fund the training of 5,000 community organisers; to act as “catalysts for community action at the neighbourhood level”. This has proved to be a controversial decision. There are even those who argue that community organisers should never take money from any government, ever.
Tessy Britton has written a couple of blog posts (here and here) with an interesting take on these questions. I think she is arguing that an Asset Based Community Development (ABCD) (http://abcdeurope.ning.com/) approach is preferable to an Alsinky style community organising approach if you want to build stronger communities.
You might crudely boil the question down to; “do we want to run projects or campaigns?”
I think the discussion can usefully be split into three parts (As Matthew Taylor has written it always seems to be three parts…); building campaigns, building stronger communities and building more empowered communities.
The main achievement that the London Citizens like to boast about is their success in securing the ‘London Living Wage’ for a number of workers, for example cleaners at major banks. This campaign used a number of classic Alinsky style techniques including focusing their campaign on one individual (normally the CEO of the bank in question).
These campaigns are able to achieve certain types of change. They are good at changing the practices of organisations that benefit from a community but are not rooted in that community (e.g. slum landlords, employers that pay low wages etc…).
Building Stronger Communities
The Alinsky model for community organising brings together existing organisations (e.g. churches, trade unions etc…) and gets them to focus on campaigning. Part of Tessy’s argument is that this approach is not conducive to building better connected, creative and stronger communities. Since the campaigns are designed around conflict and attack there is little space for creative collaboration. Instead, she argues that we should use an approach that brings people together in shared spaces in a way that celebrates and builds on those things that people already value. An example she gives of the type of project she supports is the People’s Supermarket.
This type of approach can be very successful, especially in areas that have a large amount of “hidden wealth” i.e. community assets (broadly defined), that can be connected or mobilised.
Building Empowered Communities
This suggests the tricky question; which of these approaches will give people the influence that they seem to want and that AV is promising?
Alinsky’s supporters point towards visible changes that happen directly as a result of their campaigns, whereas the ABCD enthusiasts point to the spontaneous emergence of new projects that arise out of their approach.
You will have to make your own mind up on this question. However, I do see a deeper similarity between the approaches than might be apparent.
Both approaches rely on building and utilising relationships within communities.
The Alinsky model works on the assumption that there are more or less formal associations already in existence within a given area. The organiser’s job is to bring these associations together, to connect the connectors, with a sense of purpose.
The ABCD model also tries to make new connections, although these are often between individuals rather than formal associations. Once these connections have been made the creative collaboration can take place.
One might even speculate that a community organiser using the Alinsky method would be much more successful if they worked in an area that had benefited from one of Tessy’s Traveling Pantries than if they worked in an area where there was much weaker levels of social connection.
But perhaps I am drawing connections where none exist?
Richard Nixon once said “People react to fear, not love; they don’t teach that in Sunday School, but it’s true.” Perhaps this explains why David Cameron had so much more popular success with his idea of Broken Britain than with his idea of The Big Society.
There are plenty of approaches to solving community level problems which stress the importance of identifying problems and designing solutions to those problems (for example the LEAP method).
There are also a number of approaches which seek to identify what is good about a community and to build on that. Examples include appreciative enquiry, asset based community development and positive deviance. Tessy Britton’s Travelling Pantry project would be an excellent example of this type of approach.
The RSA’s Connected Communities project is commencing work in 7 areas of England to see if projects built on an understanding of local social networks can improve people’s well being. We are trying to ensure that we do not use a “deficit model” of these areas and instead build on each area’s “hidden wealth”
One of the areas will be the Wick estate in Littlehampton. Some people speak poorly of the estate and the area scores badly on many of the measures that the government uses for the index of multiple deprivation.
I went for a walk around the estate with a local resident and a council employee. Regular readers of this blog will, I hope, forgive me if I go in to some detail about what I found.
One of the first stops we came to was the Wickbourne Centre.
From the outside it looks slightly foreboding but inside there was a great deal of activity. A busy coffee shop selling very cheap drinks and snacks and dozens of toddlers happily causing chaos as their parents (mostly mums) watched on. The building is run by a local church and was paid for through the government’s SureStart scheme.
One of the workers from the church explained to me that they run Alpha courses at the centre. These are rehab courses for men coming out of prison. ‘Alpha’ here has religious connotations as well as meaning something like “top dog”.
As well as the Wickbourne Centre there is a youth centre
And a drop-in centre for young people
The staff at the youth centre were quite suspicious of us. They asked me what I knew about the forthcoming cuts. I suppose that I seemed like a member of the establishment to them.
A couple of people told me that the youth centre used to be run by a local milkman. Back then it had seemed very welcoming. However, allegations had been made against him and it was now run on much more formal lines.
I was surprised to find out that there is only one, modestly sized, pub in the estate.
There used to be more pubs but these have closed down. People told me that there are lots of informal drinking establishments.
The local shopping parade was not particularly noteworthy
Walking along the parade did bring out a bit of nostalgia in one of my guides. He explained to me that when he was growing up the local shops would let you buy bread on trust and would tell your mum you had been in. Now they were much more likely to be chains with little local connection.
One of the most visible signs of public investment in the area is the new housing.
There is a mix of tenures in the area but the council is still a major landlord. Some of the properties are empty and there are active discussions to turn one of them into a space for community use.
One of my guides explained to me that there are people in the area known as “mums”. These are people who have an open house which teenagers can come into to get away from things (including drugs). One of the ideas for the converted flat was to be a sort of official mum; a place of quiet and solitude for anyone to retreat to.
Many of the people we talked to made reference to the rivalry with Worthing. I was told that this rivalry could be seen in the outrageous refereeing of football matches between the two towns. Someone told me that he had been sent off for “aggressive shrugging”.
The people I spoke to in the Wick were quite clear that there were problems. People mentioned problems with drink, drugs, unemployment, anti-social behaviour, stigma and insufficient public services. However, people were much keener to talk about what they liked about the area.
When I asked people “what do you like most about the Wick?” they invariably said “the people”.
I would not want to draw any dramatic conclusions from any of this.
As I walked around I kept thinking of a quote from King Lear; “Nothing will come of nothing” Perhaps policy makers are too quick to assume that deprived areas have nothing to recommend them. This leads to a desire to introduce solutions to these areas; Enterprise Zones or New Deal for Communities depending on your politics. This tendency needs to be balanced with an understanding of what is good and valuable in these areas and how this can be connected, galvanised and enhanced.
Whatever you think of the content of Cameron’s speech, the written form of the speech is pretty striking. Most points are expressed in single or double lines, with three line points being the exception, and one or two deviant ideas spilling over into four lines.
It seems the key not to dwell on one point for too long. I am not sure what to think about this yet, but the next time you listen for a political speech, look out for this structure of sentences without paragraphs, ideas without qualifications, facts without sources.
Who writes his speeches?
Is this particular to Cameron, or are all political speeches written this way?
If so, why?
Does it make them easier to deliver?
Does it make them sound better to the audience?
Should we be worried that speech writers filter political ideas in this way?
Is it part of our the relentless dumbing down of political culture?
Is there an rhetoric expert out there who can enlighten us?
This post was prompted by a very interesting article by Jonah Lehrer in which he brings together two recent papers on how a city’s population size affects the lives of its inhabitants. In the first, theoretical physicists Geoffrey West and Luis Bettencourt demonstrate that the inhabitants of a city will, on average, produce and enjoy around 15% more of almost everything – from the trademarks and patents they register, to the local restaurants they can visit, to the income they earn – than the inhabitants of another city that is half its size. They also show that it isn’t just the nice things in life that scale in this way: negative variables from murder to bedbugs also increase exponentially with population size. This isn’t a surprise in itself: as Lehrer says, city dwellers understand and accept this trade-off between the good and the bad aspects of urban life. What we didn’t necessarily appreciate is the high level of consistency between and predictability of these variations.
The second paper is by Samuel Arbesman and Nicholas Christakis of Harvard Medical School. These researchers looked at the incidence of prosocial behaviour, such as organ donation, voting and helping strangers, and how this varies with city size. In contrast to West and Bettencourt’s strikingly consistent results, they found no one statistical rule to describe variation in all types of prosocial behaviour; instead, different activities increased or decreased at different rates as city size changed.
This contrast is interesting. If people’s behaviour and experience in cities is predictable in so many ways – registering more patents and doing more shoplifting; having access to more restaurants and encountering more bedbugs – why should the same not apply to helping strangers on the street and giving money to political campaigns? What makes prosocial behaviour different and less predictable than other forms of behaviour?
One answer might be that in general the predictable factors of urban life both support and suppress a city dweller’s propensity to behave prosocially, and that more specifically an individual’s inclination to carry out a particular type of prosocial behaviour is influenced by his or her reaction to the combination of the factors he or she encounters.
Engaging in prosocial behaviour requires the opportunity and desire to cooperate with and consider the needs of others. West and Bettencourt’s research shows that larger cities certainly provide us with a greater desire and more opportunities to cooperate – for our own ends, at least. But it also shows that living in a city strengthens forces that prevent us from engaging with and caring about others, especially strangers.
Different people will react to these competing forces in different ways. A higher reported murder rate will induce varying levels of fear of crime in a local population, which in turn will deter some from going out of their way to help strangers more than others. A more cooperative environment will encourage varying levels of political discussion and debate, which will make some more interested and involved in politics than others. And that more cooperative environment may trump a fear of crime and encourage engagement with strangers, or a fear of crime may increase cynicism and disengagement from politics – or the opposite may be true.
All this would mean that, for a city as a whole, while the strength of productive and disruptive forces might be closely and broadly related to the size of the population, the combined influence of these forces on different types of prosocial behaviour will be much less consistent and predictable. Perhaps that’s why measuring and encouraging prosocial behaviour is so difficult, and why it needs more attention. It is important, after all, even if there is no convenient magic rule to describe it.
Do the ends justify the means?
There has been much discussion recently on how to get more people to volunteer but how important a goal is this? How much would we be willing to sacrifice to see this goal achieved? My guess is that the answer for most people would be “not much”.
Matthew Taylor has written on his misgivings on what he calls “involunteering” i.e. forcing people to volunteer.
I am certainly not saying that we should hope for either, however, these observations do raise lots of questions about how much of a goal increased volunteering really is.
Indeed, perhaps one of the (many) PR problems with Cameron’s idea of The Big Society is that it appears to be both a means (reforming public services, training community organisers etc…) and an end (people feeling more responsible for their area and more empowered). Without making this split clear it’s hard for us to debate which means we are or are not willing to tolerate for which ends.
The news that Nat Wei, the Government’s advisor on the Big Society, wants to spend more time in paid work and with his friends and family, and less time volunteering as the Big Society Tsar has lead to much gloating.
Some of this ridicule is just the rough and tumble associated with being a public figure in a country that loves cutting people down to size.
However, some have seen this episode as an “allegory” of the impossibility of building the Big Society. As Polly Curtis writes in the Guardian “people don’t have time to run a public service on top of holding down a job and seeing their families”.
Nat Wei himself has replied to these criticisms, saying that the Big Society “is about much more than volunteering – it’s about helping people to take control over their lives, however much time they have”.
I think that the episode does tell us something interesting about the prospects for building more empowered communities in the UK but I don’t think that it has much to do with how much free time we have.
In fact, as repeated surveys have found, we currently spend, on average, three to four hours a day watching tv or dvds, and 15 minutes doing voluntary work. Having more free time does not make it easier to volunteer. Unemployed people are less likely to volunteer than people in work, even though they clearly have more “free” time.
This incident does not tell us much about the impossibility of more people volunteering, since it is quite plain that more people could volunteer more of their time than they do currently. The fact that he will still be volunteering two days a week is quite impressive.
What I take from this episode is the importance of the labour market and the lack of any serious comment on how the labour market should be reformed as part of efforts to build the Big Society.
Another article in the Guardian today looks at the labour market in Morpeth. We are told that one unemployed person is “overqualified for the few public sector, minimum-wage posts that are available – a support worker in a local care home, a contract cleaner for the council, a census collector.”
Why does he not want to do these jobs? They seem to be perfectly noble lines of work.
Dan Pink has found that people are happier and more productive at work if they have autonomy, develop mastery and work in an organisation with a sense of purpose. I would bet that these low paid jobs are not attractive partly because they are low paid, but also because they do not give workers much of a feeling of autonomy, mastery or a sense of purpose.
Whoever came up with the phrase “work/life balance” has a lot to answer for. The idea that our paid work must be something we endure in order to pay for activities that we enjoy seems a horrifying thought, especially given that we spend most of our time working, sleeping and watching TV.
If the Government were serious about giving people control over their lives then it would be contemplating ways of reforming the labour market so that people’s experience of work is itself empowering.
A recent poll found that more people agreed than disagreed with the principles behind the Big Society but thought that the Government’s policies to build this society had little chance of working. Partly, this is good old fashioned British cynicism, but it must also be a recognition of the major structural barriers that prevent people having more control over their lives and the Government’s lack of appetite to confront these barriers.
After writing about the challenge of building the Big Society in the context of economic austerity, it became clear to me that any discourse about the Big Society had to be framed in this particular British early twenty-first century context, and not in abstract.
But between concrete and abstract there is allegory, and the following parallel occurred to me.
JRR Tolkien, author of Lord of the Rings, and creator of Middle Earth, conceived of the Shire, the home of the hobbits, as a gentle, rural, and quintessentially English place, like the West Midlands before industrialisation and perhaps not dissimilar to a tory heartland like Buckinghamshire, the kind of place where David Cameron was bred.
The Shire is a land of plenty, with a flourishing civil society, no state to speak of, and lots of informal mutual support. The Shire embodies the principles of minimal government and localism and barely even needed law enforcement, because it was a voluntarily orderly society. The only government services were the Message Service (the post) and the Watch, the police, whose officers were called Shirriffs, and whose chief duties involved rounding up stray livestock.
Mordor, on the other hand, is the home of Sauron ‘the accursed’, the nazgul, and innmuerable orcs. In fact it’s so bad it’s called dying land not yet dead”. The vegetation clinging to life in this area of Mordor included “low scrubby trees”, “coarse grey grass-tussocks”, “withered mosses”, “great writhing, tangled brambles”, and thickets of briars…Not a happy place.
Mordor is all but barren, the orcs are slaves and resources are not well distributed. Things may not be that bad here, at least not yet, but our conditions are arguably closer to Mordor than the Shire.
A recent NEF report argued that the problem with the Big Society is that the severity of public and third sector cuts militates against all of the best things about the Big Society. Joining groups, volunteering, becoming more politically active and collectively solving social problems all sounds great, but such things require social and economic foundations that may not be available.
So perhaps, at an allegorical level, the challenge of the Big Society is as follows:
Is it possible to build the Shire in Mordor?
Is the Big Society a challenge to the left, and specifically the Labour Party?
I think that it is a challenge for three reasons (you always have to have three reasons);
- Big Society rhetoric argues that there is more to life than paid work
- In arguing for the Big Society politicians are daring to politicise our “free” time, and tell us what we should do with it
- In supporting Big Society initiatives Government is saying that it is legitimate to use state money to fire people up so that they will change the world
These three points are in quite stark contrast with the previous Labour government which behaved as though paid work was of supreme importance, that whatever we did with our free time was our own business and that government should reflect the attitudes of the age.
It is quite dispiriting to see supposedly left wing critics of the Big Society arguing that they would rather sit at home and watch tv (as Mehdi Hasan did recently), but that is the strange situation we find ourselves in.
You can know buy a T-shirt with the phrase “Does my society look BIG in this?” on it. They are produced by Alison Gilchrist, RSA fellow and friend of Connected Communities. Surely the Big Society has come of age.
This month the Conservative MP Jesse Norman came to the RSA to present his take on the Big Society. I was struck by the extent that Jesse’s arguments echoed those of Philip Blond, the “Red Tory” who has also spoken at the RSA.
They both argued that the Big Society presents a challenge to British left wing thinkers and to neo-classical economics.
I think they are wrong on both counts. But more fundamentally, I think that they undermine their case by indulging in some pretty broad characterisations of their opponents’ views.
Both Norman and Blond argue that British left wing thinkers believe in big government and that big government has been one of the key causes of the decline in civic association in Britain since the war.
It is true that public services could do more to connected people with each other, but surely the relationship between public services and levels of association is much more complex than Norman’s argument suggests.
For example, in his seminal book Making Democracy Work Robert Putnam explains how higher levels of civic association leads to better performing government. In Britain, high levels of civic association (notably trade unions) were one of the forces which drove the expansion of public services after the Second World War.
Perhaps the thing about civic association and big government is, as the old song has it, “you can’t have one without the other”
Red Tories have a very positive view of the high levels of civic association in Britain at the turn of the 19th and 20th century. They talk in glowing terms about mutuals, co-ops and friendly societies. However, they talk in very negative terms about the establishment of the welfare state, something which many of these societies contributed to.
Perhaps the thing about civic association and big government is, as the old song has it, “you can’t have one without the other”.
Norman and Blond both argue that the Big Society presents a challenge to much current economic thinking. They argue that economics is based on the idea of individuals as atomised, rational beings pursuing profit. Since people are in fact more complicated than this, in particular they point to the fact that people value relationships very strongly, they argue that this position is untenable and wrong.
This is to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of economic models. As Milton Friedman argued;
“Complete “realism” is clearly unattainable, and the question whether a theory is realistic “enough” can be settled only by seeing whether it yields predictions that are good enough for the purpose in hand or that are better than predictions from alternative theories.”
For example, criticising a map of London on the grounds that it is not exactly like London in every conceivable detail serves little purpose.
I think even supporters of the Big Society would admit that it is a nascent idea. The true believers are claiming big things for it (this blog makes some particularly wild claims, seemingly comparing the Big Society to impact of the printed Bible), but I can’t be the only one who feels uncomfortable by some of the wide ranging generalisations which proponents are making.
Ideology is an amazing thing. Take the examples of France and the USA. Both liberal democracies which permit their citizens to express their views by voting, organising, demonstrating, discussing and publishing. Both states up to their eyeballs in debt. And both polar opposites in the way in which those views are being expressed and that debt addressed.
France has been living beyond its means for decades, providing an enviable state-subsidised lifestyle for its citizens that has simply been unaffordable. President Sarkozy’s determination to change this situation and bring the state finances under control, most famously by raising the retirement and state pension ages, has been met with widespread protest as French citizens seek to protect their privileges regardless of the reality of the situation.
The USA, on the other hand, is dealing with a financial crisis of much more recent gestation, but which has nonetheless placed the state under enormous strain. President Obama’s determination to deal with the situation by spending more rather than less, and to provide a better level of public service and welfare to a wider section of the US public than ever before, has also met with widespread protest, most famously through the Tea Party movement in the Republican party and the recent shift from blue to red in the mid-term elections.
What both divides and unites these two nations and their citizens’ and politicians’ attitudes to state services and welfare is ideology. France and the USA may be guided by two very different concepts of state responsibility: they are about as divided as they can be on the question of how far a democratic state should support/intrude into (delete as appropriate) the lives of their citizens. But the passion that underlines these beliefs, these ideologies, is also what unites them: their citizens have in common the fact that they know what they like and want, and they are prepared to get active and organised to protect and achieve it.
How different we are in the UK. Until the student demonstration of last week, the British public has been accepting its government’s handling of its own financial problems with barely a murmur. Indeed, the student demonstration, which focussed on a single aspect of the government’s plans, only serves to highlight the lack of public reaction to the rest of the package. I find this rather worrying, not because I think we should all be out on the streets or setting up radical political movements, but because it shows how socially and politically apathetic we are, or can be made to be, and how unwilling or unused we are to organising ourselves for our own good.
The combination of spending cuts and moves towards a Big Society means that many people in the UK will find life harder and/or have to play a more active role in their communities and local services. I can imagine citizens in France, once they had made their feelings about the change felt, channelling their passion and organising zeal and coming together to accept and work with such a new reality. But will citizens in the UK do likewise?
I have argued elsewhere on this blog that this convergence of spending cuts and the Big Society agenda is unfortunate. I still think the current confusion of the two issues, which allows the Big Society to be portrayed as a ‘fig leaf’ for cuts, threatens to undermine public support for what could be a great opportunity to foster and encourage pro-social behaviour and attitudes, with all the benefits around social capital and quality of life that that would bring. But, nevertheless, might the cuts actually be needed to inject some life into the Big Society idea?
At the moment, it looks as though we are sleepwalking towards a world with fewer services and less public support than what we have come to expect and rely on, without taking the initiative needed to strengthen communities and fill in the gaps left by a shrinking state. That’s partly because as a nation and as a collection of localities we have never in recent memory needed to do this before, and unlike France and the USA we have no recent track record of doing anything similar. Perhaps the cuts, when they start to bite, will be what’s needed to spur us into action, and give us some of that organising zeal and ideological determination to look out for ourselves that we’ve seen across the Channel and the Atlantic.