Welfare and Choice

April 1st saw the passing into force of the Conservative welfare cuts. The Guardian met this date with an outpouring of effort - largely unmatched across the British press - into alerting its readers to the imminent impact (Toynbee, 2013). If left unchallenged, that impact is likely to be further reaching and longer lasting than its immediate detrimental impact upon the lives of those presently dependant upon welfare.

Welfare, in its basic form, was established in the UK as part of the Liberal welfare reforms - where a limited form of unemployment insurance was introduced. While still following this basic premise - that those employed pay a contribution, a kind of mandatory insurance, that covers them in times of unemployment - welfare has expanded to offer support against a range of problems that prevent people from working. But it comes with a proviso: support is given to get those who can back to supporting themselves.

Since the welfare cuts were announced by the government, the coalition junior partner Liberal Democrats have have been trying to stress the positives (Clegg, 2010). They have been trying to convince the world that the reductions and restructuring are designed to turn welfare from a safety net into a springboard - launching those in need back to something productive, and there-in, back to control over their own lives.

But behind this positive message, the liberal carrot, is a rather brutal conservative stick. The changes to welfare introduce yet more strict limits on the amount of aid people can receive and in what situation they can count on it; stricter limits for housing support; and stricter limits on their right to refuse work placements regardless of their suitability (BBC, 2013) - and even when they are unpaid (Malik, 2013).

Those controls reveal a cynical attitude. They suggest the presence of a deep mistrust of the poor. A mistrust of those who need help and especially those who ask for it. That cynicism is reshaping the welfare system into a means to corral the needy, at arms length, back to the self-interested, self-motivated, pursuit of wealth.

But, more than just that cynicism, the changes let slip something odd about the ideology behind it. If the self-interested pursuit of wealth is, in and of itself, a positive and liberating course, why would you need coercion to set people onto that path? Why not just champion its benefits?

It seems that the ideology driving the changes possesses a fundamental lack of belief; either in the possibility of self-emancipation through effort earned wealth (Ariely, 2009), or in the ability of people to change and become capable of pursuing those aims.

Such a fundamental disbelief in people is dangerous. Firstly, using fear to socially engineer society and control people towards a particular working attitude also has alternative effects.

For those seeking economic growth, taking away the cost of a safety net might seem attractive. But that safety net - which kicks in when times get hard and employment is limited - helps to stave off more than hunger. It also counteracts fear. Specifically, it is the assurance against hard times that allows people freedom to spend and lend rather than save.

Secondly, that fundamental disbelief is dangerous because it threatens choice. People do not react to fear by becoming innovators. They learn the exploitative tricks of those around them or seek out the solidarity and strength of the group. You can bludgeon people into the workplace, but all you will get is a subjugated or compliant workforce - and in the process you risk destroying any positive image of the value of work.

At the core of innovation is choice. Innovation requires experience of making choices, and a life controlled by fear, of adhering to orders and authorities, limits that experience - and makes it difficult to make sound decisions.

'The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it; and a State which postpones the interests of their mental expansion and elevation, to a little more of administrative skill or that semblance of it which practice gives, in the details of business; a State, which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.' (John Stuart Mill, 1859)

Without choice, without support for their autonomy, the ability of people to motivate themselves and innovate is severely hindered. Choice means individuals standing on their own two feet, something that cannot be achieved through fear and coercion; but instead requires education, encouragement, support, compassion and, yes, an effective safety net.

==========
References:
==========
+ Polly Toynbee's 'Benefit cuts: Monday will be the day that defines this government'; in The Guardian; 28 March 2013.

+ 'Major reforms to welfare system announced'; Nick Clegg at dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk; 11 November 2010.

+ BBC's 'Benefit changes: Who will be affected?'; 27 March 2013.

+ Shiv Malik's 'Judgement expected on government's unpaid work schemes'; in The Guardian; 12 February 2013.

+ Dan Ariely's 'The Trouble with Cold Hard Cash'; in Technology Review, 5 August 2009.

+ John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'; 1859.

A Culture of Heroism and Violence

The first installment of The Hobbit film series, An Unexpected Journey, presented us with the Peter Jackson/Guillermo del Toro interpretation of Tolkien's classic adventure. But it was much more than that. It also represented an important example of the cultural crisis affecting American society. Along with other reboots such as JJ Abrams' Star Trek, An Unexpected Journey offers us an opportunity to see a narrative reworked for the values and audience of a different era.

When making The Hobbit, a decision was made to expand the story, bringing into the film things that were only hinted at in the book. In the process, new extra enemies were also introduced. In abstract, this is an understandable measure - one designed to make tangible the fears of the Dwarves and Bilbo, giving them common focus in a common enemy and add an element of coherent threat to two films that would serve largely as the journey to the third film's setpiece event.

However, that move also transformed certain contrasts: the contrast between the things that the Dwarves value and the things Bilbo values; and the contrast between the deep kindness of Bilbo and the harshness of life in the world. Instead of seeing Bilbo growing as a person through his kindness and pity, and those characteristics earning him the respect of others due to his willingness to help, Bilbo instead wins respect through an act of suicidal bravery and violence.

This stands in quite stark opposition to Tolkien's work, where Bilbo's bravest acts were nothing to do with violence - being instead epitomised by his choosing to pity Gollum, rather than take vengeance.

A similar kind of criticism has been levelled at JJ Abrams' reboot of Star Trek. Abrams sought inspiration in Star Wars, as writers and executive producers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (2009) explain:

'what can we learn from Star Wars here? ...the key is that a modern audience is already going to be attuned to a much faster pace of movie - and Trek in its best form was always submarine warfare. ...I always think of ...Star Trek as beautiful classical music and Star Wars as rock n' roll, and felt like Star Trek needed a little bit more rock n' roll to connect to a modern audience'

The original Star Trek was a champion of heroic diplomacy rather than heroic violence. Yet the reboot ditches much of the philosophy for a faster pace. Long - and admittedly sometimes didactic - discussions on ideology, politics, science and ethics were dropped for exchange of witty barbs on the move.

The changes, to both of these franchises, play right to the heart of the cultural crisis that the United States is right now clawing its way through. Violence, as the literal manifestation of the heroic, is the definitive American trope. In isolation it acts merely as an effective metaphor, making extant the conflicts we face. But it comes with an unfortunate side effect: equating murderous competition with the struggle to gain the respect of others, and build respect for yourself.

Our culture represents only the beginning and end of a cycle through which our values and our behaviour are shaped. It represents the means by which a society expresses itself - but also acts as a mirror: reflecting back a condensed, often decontextualised, and romanticised version of itself.

An Unexpected Journey and Star Trek are mirrors that tell us something about the culture that shaped them. Amongst those things that we can see is an impatience for the long, slow, often complicated, process that comes with peaceful diplomatic resolutions, and a preference for the fast, simple and final catharsis offered by 'heroic' violence.

==========
References:
==========
+ JJ Abram's 'Star Trek'; Paramount, 2009. Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci quote taken from the Star Trek extra features: 'A New Vision', 2009.

Press Regulators

The concept of a free press sits amongst the most basic fundamentals of representative government. So any attempt to regulate the press is always going to stir up a hornet's nest.

Last week the government announced their solution on press regulation. Its aim is to be a compromise between the position adopted by Conservative leader Mr Cameron and the position adopted by Liberal Democrat leader Mr Clegg and Labour leader Mr Miliband (BBC, 2013). Labour and the Lib Dems had sought statutory regulation - the underpinning and describing of a regulatory body in law - that created a legally independent regulator. The Conservatives, however, had opposed statutory regulation.

The compromise proposal offers what essentially amounts to an upgrade to the Press Complaints Commission - made independent of media chiefs and established by royal charter. Its independence will at least be an improvement upon the major press organisations regulating themselves. But is it an effective solution?

There are always more questions than answers when the subject of a free press arises, and those questions provoke more questions.

Is the establishment of an institution, even as an independent body, a positive step? Will that institution offer the most sorely needed response to those accusations brought to light in the Leveson Inquiry: the more effective enforcement of the already existing laws that were broken? And, can it do these things without threatening freedom of speech and freedom of information?

'Statutory legislation is not required and most of the heinous crimes that came up and have made such a splash in front of this inquiry have already been illegal - contempt of court is illegal, phone tapping is illegal... policemen taking money is illegal - all of these things don't need a code, we already have laws for them.' (Hislop, 2012)

Those attempting to make this new regulator a reality will have to tread very carefully. The fact that spectacular errors have already been made - like a draft bill accidentally gathering up small-time blogs and commentators into the nets cast to catch the big media enterprises that break the law to turn a profit - does not inspire confidence.

If we are not sensible to the potential dangers of a regulatory response to this crisis - spawned from bad journalistic practice acting in concert with establishment corruption - then we may well find our ability to hold those in power to account severely diminished.

==========
References:
==========
+ BBC's 'Q&A: Press regulation deal'; 18 March 2013.

+ Ian Hislop in BBC's 'Leveson Inquiry: Ian Hislop says new press laws not needed'; 17 January 2012.