Filter By

Benedict, Red Tories and Blue Labour

In advance of next week's Papal visit, reflections from Burke's Corner on how Catholic social teaching is reshaping British politics

Media coverage ahead of the forthcoming papal visit has been depressingly predictable. Secular Britain. Abuse scandals. Lack of interest. Celibacy. Beyond the banality of a headline-driven media, however, Madeleine Bunting has drawn attention to how Catholic social teaching is reshaping British political thought in challenging ways:

Curiously, this tradition is feeding into British politics more directly than ever before – both the Red Tory Philip Blond and Labour's favourite new speechwriter Maurice Glasman acknowledge its influence.

Both Left and Right are being reshaped by thinkers influenced by the Anglican and Roman Catholic tradition of Catholic social thought. Blond has emerged from the mainly Anglican theological school of Radical Orthodoxy, which has provided a rigorous critique of both neo-liberalism and statism emphasising subsidiarity and intermediary institutions. Blond, who has readily acknowledged the influence of Catholic social thought, recently addressed the Rimini conference, an influential gathering sponsored by the Roman Catholic lay movement 'Communion and Liberation'.

The father of the Radical Orthodoxy movement, theologian John Milbank, has summarised the political sympathies of those associated with it:

Some within Radical Orthodoxy may follow Phillip Blond in his espousal of new British form of "Red Toryism". Others ... will follow my own brand of "Blue Socialism" - socialism with a Burkean tinge.

Which brings us to Maurice Glasman, Director of the Faith and Citizenship Programme and senior lecturer in political theory in London Metropolitian University. Glasman has given definition to 'Blue Labour'. Just as Red Toryism has provided a critique of the Thatcherite legacy, so too Glasman's Blue Labour critiques the statism and secularism of the Left:

You need faith communities, unions, families, local people with long-term relationships with each other, trying to live their lives without being commodified ... But for the Left the minute you mention family and faith, you are automatically considered to be reactionary.

And he has been explicit about the role for faith traditions in shaping a post-liberal politics:

The pluralist constitution of cities means that they have to agree on common action but if that is so then the definition of the political agenda will challenge the prevailing liberalism of national citizenship. Issues of pornography and prostitution, faith schools and drugs, living wages and family values could move into the heart of urban politics. Communities of faith could yet redeem the lost promise of citizenship by pursuing the good of the community of fate to which we all, by necessity, belong.

When you place Glasman alongside Blond, you have the intellectual and philosophical framework to indeed reshape British politics. As Milbank states:

What we have here is an attempt to work out in practice a Communitarian politics, but one which fully includes the economic dimension. A Communitarian versus Libertarian polarity is starting to disturb the dominance of the Left-versus-Right polarity at the heart of British politics.

Delivering the Left from its adoration of the State and social libertarianism, the Right from its idolatry of the Market and its economic libertarianism, Benedict, the Red Tories and Blue Labour hold the potential to reshape British politics in pursuit of the good society.

Originally posted on the communitarian conservative and postliberal Anglican blog Burke's Corner.

Comments on: Benedict, Red Tories and Blue Labour

Gravatar Sam Kiss 17 September 2010
Steve,
With all due respect, almost no one thinks that religious belief is not on the decline in Europe. The facts are pretty compelling. Much as I am loath to cite wikipedia, this article is worth a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_europe. For the UK, there's even a handy little graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bsa-religion-question.svg That said, if you are willing to conflate spiritualism and religiosity, then you might possibly have a case. Personally, I think upon the two as being distinct. And yes, of course the Ancient Greeks had a religion - Hellenic polytheism.
Reply
Gravatar Steve James 17 September 2010
All these graphs - and other similar stats - can capture is disaffection or loss of affinity or identity with a particular traditional Christian tradition. I am happy with the term post-christendom. That has definitely changed and I welcome it - to a point. But this is not loss of (s) faith. And I know I am not the only one who gets steamed about this as this letter in the Guardian shows:

"Polly Toynbee says: "At most 12% of the population regularly practises any faith in the secular UK." I would like to know whence she gets this statistic, as I would say the figure is always 100%. Many people, like Toynbee, continually misuse the word "faith" to mean "a religion", usually failing to see, either deliberately or unwittingly, how humanism, and secularism, and atheism, and "scientism", and even agnosticism (for example) can just as easily be included in the latter, along with so-called traditional religions. For what it's worth, faith can't really be practised, faith should never be preceded by an indefinite article, and faith cannot be pluralised. As with hope and love, we all have faith, to some degree;"

And the reason I am also "conflating spirituality and religiosity" is because of the original point about the importance of faith communities (NOT just Religious bodies)in promoting civic society Essentially people have more than self-interest at heart. We are not machines driven by self-interest alone. You don't have to be subscribed member of a religious tradition to accept this, but it does make a difference.
Reply
Gravatar Steve James 17 September 2010
Alfonso, I don't know why you say religion is on the decline in Europe. What evidence are you offering. Church attendance, as measured by number of people in state/recognised churches, is certainly down. But instead, there is increased interest in new age and other forms of personal spirituality. Just look at the books on sale in the Religion section at any bookshop. I would say people are just as interested in "God" - its just that they don't want to be told what to believe and rather do it for themselves. Its the authority that formal religion represents that people are rejecting.

Note - when I say religion I dont mean just Christianity. Even ancient Greeks had a "religion".



Reply
Gravatar Alfonso 14 September 2010
"I think you're right broadly right that people will (and have) become more open to religious foundations for morality, rather than secular or humanist foundations, although I'd be interested to hear what you think this will mean for the future of liberal countries?"

Adam, I am not sure that this is true. Why do you believe that ordinary citizens are now more receptive? If anything, the evidence shows that religion, at least in Europe, is on the decline.
Reply
Gravatar Alfonso 14 September 2010
Apologies, above post riddled with typos, but was rushed.
Reply
Gravatar Alfonso 14 September 2010
So many problems with these sorts of arguments. Chaos, violence, antisocial behaviour, increased crime, and so on, clearly have little or nothing to do with secularisation. Observe the world. If it is true that secularisation is the cause, then why is it the case that most African, Latin American, and other religious societies, not least the US, are more violent, antisocial, criminal, and so on, than irreligious, licentious European ones? Reflect upon that. Almost all of the available the evidence shows that poverty, inequality, ignorance, and immobility are, without doubt, the chief causes of crime, violence, antisocial behaviour etc. European societies merely happen to be best at providing for equality of opportunity, education, and so on. What is more, crime in the UK has been on the decline, and dramatically, for centuries! Your eschatology is bunk!

Fact is, medieval and Early Modern Christian societies were no more or less brutal than pre-Christian ones. Consider the evidence. Any historian will tell you that the Romans valued integrity, the individual, virtuous action, and the like. And so did Aristotle. Seminal moment? Modernity. Arguably, that's when things began to improve. Has nought to do with Christianity.

Finally, morals, ethics, call them what you want - they have always existed, as it is in our interests to have some sort of normative framework. We are social beings, evolutionarily dependent upon one another. Again, archaeological/palaeontological evidence clearly demonstrates that human beings cared for the sick, the elderly, and one another, long before the advent of Christianity, indeed long before the advent of either painting or writing. Self-interest can be a good thing.

Make fact-sensitive, evidence-based arguments. Please.
Reply
Gravatar Adam Schoenborn 14 September 2010
Thanks for the comments Alfonso. I think that you make a strong case that "Chaos, violence, antisocial behaviour, increased crime, and so on, clearly have little or nothing to do with secularisation."

But for me, that doesn't get to the problem with high modernism. In massively abbreviated Rawlsian terms, "secularisation" is essentially the philosophy of privileging the right over the good in public life. This entails a privitisation of the good, each person being free to pursue their version of the good life without outside interference, so long as they do not interfere with others.

This has run aground on the fact that many conceptions of the good are inherently public, typically concerning acceptable public norms (around antisocial behaviour, gender roles, honour codes, public virtue, etc). The contradiction of seclurisation is that, in priveleging the right over the good, it essentially becomes a conception of the public good that neuters all others.

As you point out, in secular societies, the law can control behaviour and hold people to a standard of the right. But it struggles to accomodate robust concepts of the good life.
Reply
Gravatar Magpie 14 September 2010
Hugo Rifkind, a non-believing writer at The Times wrote an interesting comment about morals. In his first week at university studying philosophy he learnt that a godless society cannot have morals or ethics. They simply make no sense in a world without a powerful, supernatural, inspirational figure.
This does not mean that non-believers cannot have morals or ethics. But he suggests that they can only obtain morals or ethics from the religious people or society around them, they cannot engender them themselves.

Taken to its conclusion this means that if we in the UK ever lose our Christian faith completely or think that JC is in some way disposable, we will also lose our Christian morals and beliefs which include compassion for the sick and weak, respect for the individual, belief in giving more than you get, turning the other cheek etc. etc. none of which make sense in a godless world. In fact we will tend towards the evolutionary principles of survival of the fittest which will gradually lead us back to the brutish society we had in the 5th Century before the arrival of Christianity.

Maybe an interesting questions is: at what stage do we reach the tipping point where the number of believers is so small that they can no longer influence the non-believers around them with their beliefs?

Personally I think we will never get to that point. As we slide towards chaos in an increasingly secular (and therefore moral-less and ethic-less) world, violent, criminal and antisocial behaviour will increase to a level which will make the majority more receptive to religious, especially Christian and Jewish, beliefs. Even the BBC (which has Christian roots but has been taken over by the secular left) will have to discontinue its relentless attack on faith and start giving more programming space to evangelists.

Then we will be on the way back to civilisation.
Reply
Gravatar Adam Schoenborn 14 September 2010
Interesting hypothesis Magpie,

Check back in with the Disraeli Room tomorrow, I'm pulling together a short piece on the Pope's debate with Habermas - which is perhaps one of the most interesting conversations about the problem that you've raised in the first paragraph.

I think you're right broadly right that people will (and have) become more open to religious foundations for morality, rather than secular or humanist foundations, although I'd be interested to hear what you think this will mean for the future of liberal countries?
Reply
Gravatar Alfonso Carello 09 September 2010
The problem with contemporary political theory is that it is too far divorced from the concerns of actual, living citizens; the people that populate poleis. It would seem that Glasman, too, is working out of a tradition of bean counting. Irrespective of the merits or demerits of his normative arguments, Glasman fails to adumbrate anything like a useful political theory. His ideas are as irrelevant as they are reactionary. Faith is not something that concerns the vast majority of Britons. Indeed, the vast majority of Europeans, according to numerous polls and studies, are non-religious. According to Euro-barometer, only 38% of Britons believe in a God. Clearly, then, faith cannot be one of the building blocks of a new, communitarian society.

I respect the rights of individuals to believe, and I am firmly committed to pluralism. That said, I do think that faith already receives far too much attention from academics, political thinkers, and so on. It is a minority interest, and not one that ought to concern political theorists dealing in the currencies of realism and relevance.

Reply
Gravatar Steve James 10 September 2010
Just because a poll shows 38% have ticked a box saying they don't believe in a God, doesn't mean they have "no faith". They obviously exercise at least some faith that their answers are being correctly represented. Everyone has faith in something bigger than themselves, even if its just in humanity.

Also, what people indicate in a poll doesn't always equate with what they actually DO, And while they might SAY they don't believe in God, lots of people ACT as if they do - for various reasons. Probably more accurate to say that most people feel that organised religious faith of a particular label is of no relevance to their day to day life.

In a landscape bereft of any sense of community or belonging, the places of traditional faith are often the only places that function in anything like civic society - where people do something because they love the other. The people who make up these places are not operating on a market based philosophy which everyone else around them seems to be.

Its not surprising that academics and political thinkers are paying close attention to such communities as everything else has failed, me thinks.
Reply

Join the discussion Have opinions on this matter? Why not get involved and comment on this below.

Become a Member Joining ResPublica give you an exclusive amount of features. Gain early access to ResPublica events, contribute to topics and much more.

Detailed Summary

About The Authors