The BBC has just finished its series about the
rise of the global middle class, but every few weeks there is more evidence of
the middle class revolt emerging – first the Middle East, then Turkey, then
Brazil, and then...
It may be premature to interpret this as
one phenomenon, though that has hardly stopped some commentators – and it isn’t
going to stop me today either.
What appears to be happening is that the
global middle classes are emerging, only to discover how far the current
economic system renders them powerless – and how far it threatens their
continued existence. They lose public
park in Ankara, or a bus fare in Rio, but these are just symbols of an
underlying powerlessness.
What makes this a middle class revolt is not
that they are defending middle class privileges.
It is that the global working classes no
longer have the time, the space or the power to organise any kind of
uprising. They are measured and
controlled by tyrannical employers when they work, and – when they don’t – they
are pre-occupied with the business of survival.
The prolific critic Slavoj Zizek has drawnparallels between the democratic reformers in the Middle East and the economic
reformers in Latin America, arguing that they are both making a stand against
fundamentalism that denies the importance of their humanity, and that they recognise
the parallels.
It may be religious fundamentalism which
clings to a bizarre belief in the literal truth of every sentence of holy scripture. Or it may be market fundamentalism, which
clings to a bizarre belief in the objective reality of market values and the
bottom line. It is at heart the same
thing.
I find this idea compelling. It points to a similar crisis in economics
and theology, and demands a humanistic response to both these kinds of
spiritual impoverishment. Neither of
them see the world as it really is. In
theological terms, both put narrow simplifications above complex truth – which
theologians used to call ‘idolatry’.
To make this comparison doesn’t mean
rejecting genuine, complex religion, any more than it means rejecting
markets. It means rejecting inhumane
simplifications, single bottom lines, one-dimensional measures...
Perhaps it also sheds some light on one of
the things that has been confusing me.
Where is the spark of revolt against the market fundamentalism which is
impoverishing the UK, where the middle classes are cowed, the working classes
are powerless, and where political debate is so staggeringly narrow and
constrained?
Because, watching the new pope, developing
his pro-poor mission in Latin America, I have been wondering whether the spark
of change is going to come from the Church.
I know this is anathema to the kind of positivist
liberalism represented by Richard Dawkins and others. But it may be that only the Church is
independent enough to see the problem clearly – and to recognise fundamentalism
when they see it.
Then, there was the Archbishop of
Canterbury weighing in to the payday loan companies, in a Church Militant tone
of voice which we have not heard for a century or so.
He may have stepped back from this rhetoric
in the days that followed. But it was so
brave and clear, and tremendously hopeless, that I can’t get it out of my head.
Because we need that tone of voice,
uncompromising, determined and human – threatening to drive the payday loan
companies out of business. Aggressive on
the side of what is right.
There is something going on in this space
and I welcome it, and I am looking forward to the next intervention.
Incidentally, I am speaking at the
Edinburgh Book Festival at 4pm on 19 August.
If you want to debate these issues, or argue with me about my book Broke:Who killed the middle classes?, please come along...!
2 comments:
What the Church has now, students used to have, and some politicians had in an age gone by, was the rare luxury of being able to pontificate without consequence. OK, I'm pontificating now, but so many former sources of sense and protest in the past are now absorbed by the need to perform and meet rigorous targets etc. For politicians, I imagine it is the relentless focus groups, polling, and ever-watching media. Like many others, they feel their opinions are confined, forcing them to stay on message with their critiques. It means that dominant ideologies, including market fundamentalism and scientific fundamentalism have fewer people able to challenge them.
(From Iain King)
I've been working through the books of the Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. He's very good at explaining how we have to show a commitment to society by taking action.
He also emphasises how important 'freedom' is to the Jewish people.
That's why I'm self-employed. You can't really be free working full-time for big organisations without compromising on your values.
Organisations like political parties want to create certainty by strict discipline, but that doesn't seem to be in the nature of political parties. If you can't contribute your opinion or challenge others, what's the point of being a part of them?
Post a Comment